Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 1,882
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm
Not all speech is protected by freedom of expression rights, and not all protest is legitimate in the eyes of the state. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 3:32 am
However, beware, that unlike one in H-1B status who may be able to keep on applying for extensions under AC 21, the shelf life of the L-1A status is 7 years, and 5 years for the L-1B status, as AC21 does not apply to L-1s. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
Only a higher court can say now whether there is more to s.98(4)(b) than Lord Simon of Glaisdale felt able to see in it in Devis v Atkins[1977] AC 931, which was a wide construction of “reasonably” (a formula which, with great respect, could be used to justify a band of possible decisions broad enough to encompass what a tribunal views as substantively inequitable and unmeritorious dismissals). [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 3:16 pm
As per H and Others v Ealing, the Defendant had to meet the four stage test in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) (2014) AC 700 (1) is there a sufficiently important objective (i.e. legitimate aim), (2) is the measure rationally connected to that objective, (3) is it the least intrusive measure which could be used without unacceptably compromising the objective and (4) in adopting the measure has the defendant struck a fair balance between the importance of securing the… [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:41 pm
[1992] 2 AC 386 and Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd. v Berrisford [2011] UKSC 52 as both taking the view that the LPA 1925 “seemed to underwrite the established common law position”, rather than invalidating the previous common law position on ‘hybrid’ tenancies. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Back in Doherty v Birmingham [2008] UKHL 57; [2009] 1 AC 367 Lord Hope said at [20] that: "I am not convinced that the Strasbourg Court-which did not hear oral argument in McCann -has fully appreciated the very real problems that are likely to be caused if we were to depart from the majority view in Kay in favour of that of the minority. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Back in Doherty v Birmingham [2008] UKHL 57; [2009] 1 AC 367 Lord Hope said at [20] that: "I am not convinced that the Strasbourg Court-which did not hear oral argument in McCann -has fully appreciated the very real problems that are likely to be caused if we were to depart from the majority view in Kay in favour of that of the minority. [read post]
17 Aug 2008, 1:32 am
A recent example of just how preposterous things are getting recently came from New Orleans when the Fifth Circuit decided Gore Design Completions, Ltd. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 5:52 pm
In each of Re British Broadcasting Corporation ([2010] 1 AC 145 at [27], [70]), Re Guardian News and Media Limited [2010] 2 WLR 325 at [74] and Independent News and Media Limited and Others v. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 1:00 am
Paten v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 1:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 1:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 1:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 2:41 am
David Richards J held that this would therefore have involved a significant departures from two fundamental common law principles: first, the principle of open justice requires that trials are conducted in public; and, second, the principle of natural justice includes the right of a party to know the case against him and the evidence on which it is based (relying on Al Rawi v The Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 (13 July 2011) [10]-[13] (Lord Dyson); and later, in respect of open justice, to… [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 2:06 am
” Jack of Kent blog 16th September - “Today’s Met Statement“ Case law which may be of some relevance: X v Morgan Grampian [1991] 1 AC 1 – interpretation of “interests of justice” in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.10 Secretary of State for defence v Guardian Newspapers [1984] 2 WLR 268 – “national security” in Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.10 Re an Inquiry under the Company Securities (Insider… [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 10:00 pm
On June 13, 2014, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued its opinion in Alabama Forrest Products Industry Workmen’s Compensation Self Insurer’s Fund v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 10:42 am
Mariner Health and Ace USA, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008). [read post]
