Search for: "Lady v State"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,744
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
Lady Hale (Lord Carnwath agreeing) dissented in relation to A. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 2:09 am
” The facts revealed that only two dinner ladies were supervising 300 pupils. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 5:44 am
Lady Hale stated that: “The question is whether, in the light of the words used, their context and the purpose of the legislation, Parliament must have meant the Crown to be bound. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
Of interest to constitutional lawyers, the Court embarked upon a detailed consideration of an earlier decision in Quark Fishing Ltd v UK, App. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 2:08 am
However she stated since this was not a remedy sought by the appellants the Court should invite further submissions before finally deciding the outcome of the appeal. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 2:14 am
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 5:01 am
State v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:00 am
Lord Clarke (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Sumption agreed) gave judgment for the majority, finding that the policy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) to indefinitely retain the biometric data of adults convicted of recordable offences was proportionate. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 10:50 am
The story of Kenneth Young is a tragic one and one that I felt compelled to write about and hopefully contribute lead to pulling a blindfold off of Lady Justice. [read post]
Case Comment: Sadovska & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54
31 Jul 2017, 3:30 am
The Supreme Court It is incumbent on the state to establish any wrongdoing. [read post]
1 May 2008, 4:40 am
— former state attorney general for Texas, prefacing his oral argument in Roe v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
Comment This case is significant for two reasons: First, it tasks the Supreme Court with answering the question raised obiter by Lady Hale in Savage v South Essex NHS Trust [2009] 1 AC 653, namely “what is the extent of the state’s duty to protect all people against an immediate risk of self-harm? [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 12:58 pm
Answer: Keep an eye on the Foxy Ladies v. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 1:45 am
Lord Wilson agrees with Lady Arden. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 3:01 am
Hosanna-Tabor sequel: Court agrees to review Ninth Circuit decisions taking narrow view of “ministerial exception,” which restricts court review of some decisions by religious employers [SCOTUSBlog, Eric Rassbach; Joseph Cosby on Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 12:52 am
Bearing this in mind, Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM, Carolus C. [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 8:20 pm
Elliott v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
