Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 1,882
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2012, 6:13 pm
Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 7:29 am
He observed that the test for duty of care in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605[3] was not necessarily the starting point in establishing whether a duty of care is owed by a parent company as this was not a “novel category of common law negligence liability”, but rather had already been considered in previous cases. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
(s.2(2)) The test has been long-established, and was stated by Lord Diplock in Attorney General v English[1980] AC 116 at 141H-142C: If, as in the instant case, and probably in most other criminal trials upon indictment, it is the outcome of the trial or the need to discharge the jury without proceeding to a verdict that is put at risk, there can be no question that that which in the course of justice is put at risk is as serious as anything could be. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:26 pm
Among other cases, the Supreme Courtandrsquo;s majority opinion cited the 1987 case Shearson/American Express Inc. v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 12:44 pm
” Saxe, 240 F.3d at 204; see also United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 10:11 am
Related Cases: United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 4:17 am
The Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence to progress deportation. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 9:43 am
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
21 Oct 2008, 6:30 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Stefan Scott v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 5:30 am
Kitson v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 2:14 pm
Some sources, like the Irish Province of the Order of the Carmelites, state that the martyrdom of Valentine took place on February 14, 269 or 270 ACE. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 5:51 am
In response to the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 5:57 pm
Jeremy Bentham said in a well known passage quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 477: Publicity is the very soul of justice. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 3:48 pm
Per Lord Oliver in Abbey National BS v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 3:48 pm
Per Lord Oliver in Abbey National BS v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 8:05 am
The sole exception appears to be where the applicant is close to dying and there is insufficient care available in the returning country to enable the applicant to die with dignity: N v Secretary of State for Home Department [2005] UKHL 31; [2005] 2 AC 296 and N v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 885. [read post]
