Search for: "Hart v. Hart" Results 1061 - 1080 of 1,662
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Mar 2013, 3:50 am
To borrow one of Hart's examples, an ordinance prohibiting 'vehicles in the park', in the 1960s, certainly applied to cars, motorbikes and buses. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:55 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
The counter-argument put by David Hart QC centred on pragmatism over principle. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 11:30 pm by Martin Steiger
Wie der Fall Chelsea (ehemals Bradley) Manning gezeigt hat, […] drohen Whistleblowern in den USA äusserst harte Strafen. [read post]
7 May 2012, 3:05 am by New Books Script
Toronto, Ont. : Continuing Professional Development, Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 1 v. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 8:17 am by Chukwuma Okoli
In the very recent case of Sarki v Sarki & Ors,[1] the Nigerian Court of Appeal considered the issue of what court had territorial jurisdiction in a matter of succession and administration of estate of a deceased person’s property under Nigerian conflict of laws dealing with inter-state matters. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 5:44 am by familoo
” His adversary, Professor Herbert Hart, took much the same position as Mill. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 10:38 pm
Regardless of what Stevens was asked during his confirmation hearings, Roe v. [read post]
31 May 2021, 6:47 am by Chukwuma Okoli
The purpose of this write up is to briefly highlight the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws through the lens of a very recently reported case (reported last week) of Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Anor. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 9:23 am
IP and Other Things:  A Collection of Essays and Speeches by Robin Jacob is published by Hart Publishing (Bloomsbury). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 10:16 am by Rosalind English
(See, on this point, David Hart QC’s post on the way pollution reduction initiatives, even of the EU Commission’s own making, are made to give way to free trade objectives. [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 1:53 pm by Giles Peaker
It is possible, however, that that is too prescriptive and that what matters is the probability and likely gravity of damage rather than simply its imminence: Hooper v Rogers (1973) 1 Ch 43 at 30; Islington LBC v Elliott at (31), quoting Chadwick LJ in Lloyd v Symonds (1998) EWCA Civ 511, and at (33)-(34), (36); D. [read post]