Search for: "KERR v. JONES" Results 101 - 120 of 370
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jan 2012, 11:55 am by Kali Borkoski
This morning the Court issued its decision in the GPS tracking case United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:52 am by EMMA FOUBISTER, MATRIX
In November 2017, the Supreme Court (sitting in a panel comprising Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Lloyd-Jones) will hear this appeal relating to the lawfulness of the disclosure of a rape acquittal on an Enhanced Criminal Records Check (‘ECRC’). [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:05 am by JULIE BALL, TRAINEE, MATRIX CHAMBERS
On Monday and Tuesday, the 3 and 4 December 2018, the Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, and Lord Lloyd-Jones) will hear Privacy International’s appeal (UKSC 2018/0004) against the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal ([2017] EWCA Civ 1868; [2018] 1 WLR 2572), which found that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA… [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 12:58 am
Here’s the abstract: In the Supreme Court’s recent decision on GPS monitoring, United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 11:58 am by Joshua Matz
 Finally, NPR’s On the Media interviewed Orin Kerr about the opinion. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 12:10 pm by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) During the oral argument a few weeks ago in United States v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Jones(Updated/expanded 11/10) I've been reading the transcript (pdf) from yesterday's oral arguments at the US Supreme Court in US v. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 12:08 am by INFORRM
Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court Ms Stocker sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court – and on 9 July 2018 Lord Kerr, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs granted the permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss her appeal from the judgment of Mitting J. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm by Dave
Imputation involves concluding what the parties would have intended, whereas inference involves concluding what they did intend. ([126])And so, Jones v Kernott [2011] UKHL 53. [read post]