Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1461 - 1480
of 3,574
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2011, 12:50 am
This was a matter which had divided the House of Lords, and consequently been left open, in R v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2008] UKHL 37, in which a decision to prosecute a 15 year old for sexual intercourse with a 12 year old was challenged. [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 1:30 am
Quoting from both Lord Arbinger v Ashton [(1873) LR Eq 358 at 374] and Schneider NO and Others v AA and Another [2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC) at 211], the court re-iterated the position that, whilst there is no doubt some natural leaning on the part of an expert towards their paymasters, this does not in any way absolve the expert of the duty of impartiality and integrity. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 4:00 am
Smolin, Kids Are Not Cakes: A Children's Rights Perspective on Fulton v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 10:37 am
”However, it should be noted Lord McCluskey’s initial report clearly states : “We do not suggest that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should be ended. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:06 am
Lord Justice Hooper adopted Mr Justice Baker’s reasoning as to why this was a special case. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:35 am
It reads like this: I AM the LORD thy God. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 4:09 am
On 2 April, a nursing entry stated ‘Nil further chest pain’. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm
Lord Justice Kitchin rejected these submissions. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
Lambeth LBC v Kay [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 A.C. 465; [2006] H.L.R. 22, per Lord Nichols [61] and Lord Hope [64]. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
Lambeth LBC v Kay [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 A.C. 465; [2006] H.L.R. 22, per Lord Nichols [61] and Lord Hope [64]. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 4:31 am
Lord Eassie went on to state at para. 48 of the Court’s judgment: “. . . we for our part do not see any reason why in ordinary, contemporary English usage ‘leave’ in this context should not simply connote a period in which the employee is free from work commitment. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 7:00 am
In the case of U.S. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:18 pm
I will begin by summarising the present state of that law. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:32 am
It applied the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton DC [2004] AC 46 in interpreting the 1957 Act. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
Lord, Williston on Contracts § 56:92 [4th ed, May 2023 update]). [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
Lord, Williston on Contracts § 56:92 [4th ed, May 2023 update]). [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:09 am
Lord Toulson would have dismissed the police’s appeal, stating that he did not think that the evidence given by the police explains why they need to retain the information for many years after the event about someone about whom they have concluded that he was not known to act violently. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 8:58 am
We will certainly be glad for the compo”.Lord David Ramsbotham, at the Barred from Voting campaign meeting in Parliament last Monday, stated that he intends to raise the serious issue of Lord Bach making a misleading statement in Parliament. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 10:35 am
Tugendhat J referred to the guidance given by Lord Woolf on the subject in Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco [1998] EWCA Civ 224 which led to Queen’s Bench Division judges giving formal judgments setting out their reasons for decisions on interim applications. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 5:07 pm
Sir Robin Jacob (who retired from the Court of Appeal last year but was making one of his occasional reappearances) in giving the leading judgment noted Lord Nicholls in Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] AC 284, p.308: “The court may grant an injunction against a party properly before it where this is required to avoid injustice […] The court habitually grants injunctions in respect of certain types of conduct. [read post]
