Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 1,882
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2023, 4:24 am
Q: On April 21, 2022, the Supreme Court in Cassirer v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 3:33 pm
According to Justice Kennedy, Seattle, like Mulkey and Hunter, is best understood as a case in which the state action had the serious risk, if not purpose, of causing specific injuries on account of race. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 9:13 am
Ac. [read post]
13 May 2009, 5:47 am
Merrill v. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm
Drawing on precedent from Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 5:40 am
ACS Systems, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 886, 909-10 (Cal.App. 2003)). [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 11:03 pm
The Court of Appeal disagreed: Airbus v Patel [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 8; but then the House of Lords agreed with Colman J, holding in effect that the English courts should not act as the world's policemen where a non-contractual anti-suit injunction was sought, as this would be contrary to the principle of comity: Airbus v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:09 pm
The complaint alleged “systematic, widespread, and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works”, and argued that GSU “has facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced Georgia State professors to upload and post to these systems - and Georgia State students simultaneously to download, view, print, copy, and distribute - many, if not all, of the assigned readings for a particular course without limitation. [read post]
17 May 2010, 12:58 am
The LA decided that she lacked capacity to make such an application, R v Tower Hamlets LBC ex p Begum [1993] 1 AC 509. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:00 am
A predecessor to section 41(3) was upheld by the High Court on the grounds that the Oireachtas was entitled to conclude that significant resources would unfairly distort the political marketplace in favour of larger parties, well-established interest groups and major candidates with deep pockets, and against the interests of smaller parties or interest groups and minor candidates lacking in similar resources (Colgan v IRTC [2000] 2 IR 490, [1999] 1 ILRM 22, [1998] IEHC 117 (20 July 1998)),… [read post]
17 May 2010, 12:58 am
The LA decided that she lacked capacity to make such an application, R v Tower Hamlets LBC ex p Begum [1993] 1 AC 509. [read post]
29 Oct 2022, 3:44 pm
ShareNearly 100 amicus briefs were filed in Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 2:30 pm
Thus, in the classic case of James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751, the criterion used for allowing free entry to the council's swimming pool was not sex but statutory retirement age. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 2:30 pm
Thus, in the classic case of James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751, the criterion used for allowing free entry to the council's swimming pool was not sex but statutory retirement age. [read post]
17 May 2015, 2:57 am
Siehr recalled the landmark cases of Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz, [1984] AC 1, Winkworth v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:45 pm
I have now had a chance to work through the case law, in particular Hart v O'Connor and Imperial Loan Co v Stone [1892] 1 QB 599. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:45 pm
I have now had a chance to work through the case law, in particular Hart v O'Connor and Imperial Loan Co v Stone [1892] 1 QB 599. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:50 am
Unlike, say, Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004), this is not a case of Cowen on intensely private and personal time, seeking private help for very personal demons. [read post]
3 Dec 2023, 12:36 pm
The Supreme Court, in Lord Sales judgment, restates the starting position, as per R v East Sussex County Council, Ex p Tandy (1998) AC 714, that where Parliament imposes a statutory duty on a public authority to provide a specific benefit or service, it does so on the footing that the authority must be taken to have the resources available to comply with that duty. [read post]
4 May 2012, 3:24 am
’ Juror A received three responses, one of which stated: `Throw the book at 'em. [read post]
