Search for: "Hale v. Hale"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 1,470
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2011, 2:21 pm
New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion: Too Much Media, LLC, et al. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 12:39 pm
Supreme Court in Too Much Media LLC et al. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 9:56 am
In O’Grady v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 3:38 am
Lord Dyson gave the leading judgment for the five-member majority, which also comprised Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Judge and Lord Kerr. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:04 am
R. and H. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:56 pm
As Baroness Hale said at paragraph 73: It is not statute, but the common law, indeed the rule of law itself, which imposes upon the Secretary of State the duty to comply with his own stated policy, unless he has a good reason to depart from it in the particular case at the particular time. [read post]
30 May 2011, 11:37 pm
Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Dyson and Brown also agreed that the inquest into the McCaughey and Grew deaths was required by the HRA, interpreted in the light of Silih, to be Article 2 compliant, the latter pointing out ([102]) that “[t]here are, we were told, 16 existing “legacy inquests” (involving 26 deaths) currently outstanding on the coroner’s books, a further six incidents (involving eight pre-2000 deaths) referred by the Attorney General to the Coroner for… [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:54 am
The Supreme Court The appeal has been heard by Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and Sir Nicholas Wilson. [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:55 pm
The Court held that: Decisions weighing the public interest in deportation against the private interest of the appellant and his family in his private and family life are often difficult and cannot easily be categorised as perverse” [§23] Lord Justice Longmore referred to MA (Somalia) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 49 when the Supreme Court reminded the Court of Appeal that it: should not be astute to characterise as an error of law what is no more than a… [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the joint appeal of Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) Ltd; Knowsley MBC v Willmore [2011] UKSC 10. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
22 May 2011, 12:00 pm
The case of E (Children) will be heard in Courtroom 2 by Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Sir Nicholas Wilson. [read post]
20 May 2011, 5:16 am
See Bauman v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:13 pm
The three linked appeals, Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland), Scottish Widows plc No.2 v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland) and Scottish Widows plc (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, will be heard in the Supreme Court this week by Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Neuberger and Lord Clarke. [read post]
14 May 2011, 10:59 pm
Indiana Asserts Jurisdiction Over Ohio LawyerFoley v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 12:30 pm
The Court considered R(M) v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) as the leading case on s.21(1). [read post]
12 May 2011, 7:53 am
Co. v. [read post]
10 May 2011, 10:25 am
Bankruptcy Judge Harlin “Cooter” Hale in Dallas. [read post]
6 May 2011, 10:40 am
Shymatta v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 5:05 am
Lord Phillips and Lady Hale, considered similar questions in relation to the meaning of ‘benefit’ in confiscation cases (albeit in relation to the preceding statutory regime under Criminal Justice Act 1988) relatively recently as Law Lords in CPS v Jennings [2008] UKHL 29. [read post]
