Search for: "United States v. Lord"
Results 121 - 140
of 1,510
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Oct 2022, 9:02 am
The stated intention is to hold this vote on 19 October 2023. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
It was not because nationals other Member States may qualify for the Credit in question (Lord Hope, giving the main judgment, states in terms that “had a right to reside in the United Kingdom…been the sole condition of entitlement to state pension credit, it would without doubt have been directly discriminatory on grounds of nationality”: para 26); it was because not all UK nationals would be able to meet the test of habitual residence… [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 11:32 am
of State. [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]
6 Aug 2012, 2:28 pm
One of the plaintiffs is Darth Vader, and the defendant is none other than the most powerful entity in this solar system, the United States of America…! [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 5:00 am
On Dec. 11, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments in ACLU v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
The Lord Advocate replies that this is a fair observation. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:32 pm
Plaintiffs-Appellants Hells Canyon Preservation Council and The Wilderness Society (collectively, HCPC or plaintiffs) brought suit against the United States Forest Service (Forest Service or Service), seeking a judgment declaring: (1) that the Forest Service has failed to retain the original map of the Wilderness in violation of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:32 pm
Plaintiffs also seek an injunction to close the Lord Flat Trail to motorized vehicle use. [read post]
13 Jun 2006, 8:06 am
United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876); Tenet v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 1:34 am
This principle was famously laid down in the case of Sidhu v British Airways (where passengers could not sue at common law for harm resulting from their plane having been high jacked following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), and subsequently applied by senior courts around the world, including notably the United States Supreme Court in El Al Israel Airlines v Tseng (though Justice Stevens there dissented). [read post]
28 May 2012, 11:38 am
In answering the issues, the Court of Appeal relied upon the (minority) judgment of Lord Hoffman in Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings [2006] UKPC 26, and Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] UKHL 21, finding that foreign court proceedings could in fact be recognised in this case under the Model Law. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 5:37 pm
And does it necessarily imply a draconian framework of state interference? [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 3:09 am
In delivering the lead judgment Lord Carnwath provisionally stated that the decision in 2005 was the exercise of prerogative powers for the conduct of foreign relations. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:04 am
R. and H. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
In relation to control, no material difference as regards the position of the state. 15.07: Thomas de la Mare QC takes the Court through the cases of Barnado and Mallin v Clark. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:24 am
United States. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:26 am
This is only the second time that the highest court has considered the application of the “responsible publication in the public interest”, first established by the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers ([2001] 2 AC 127) nearly 12 years ago. [read post]
