Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1521 - 1540
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2010, 9:16 am
Earlier: Potential Lawsuit / Bar Exam Review Question of the Day: Laurence Tribe v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
Following the decision in B & Q [1984] AC 754, 714J it was in order to grant an injunction where it was clear that the criminal penalties available were insufficient to deter continued breaches. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
Following the decision in B & Q [1984] AC 754, 714J it was in order to grant an injunction where it was clear that the criminal penalties available were insufficient to deter continued breaches. [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 10:04 am
The defence of fair comment was last considered by the House of Lords in Telnikoff v Matusevitch ([1992] 2 AC 343). [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 5:51 am
In response to the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm
He considers that five authorities: Warner v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm
He considers that five authorities: Warner v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
Wall Street Journal ([2007] 1 AC 359). [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 10:25 pm
The leading case on the state’s duty to investigate, Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653 makes it clear that the investigative obligation of the State may – depending on what facts are at issue – go well beyond the ascertainment of individual fault and reach questions of system, management and institutional culture. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 11:18 am
Consider the ruling in a 1985 UK case, Lion Laboratories v Evans, [1984] 2 All ER 417, [1985] QB 526. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
’ ([2001] 2 AC 127, at 206 per Lord Nicholls). [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:37 am
Of all the domestic cases on the right to education, the most important is A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363; this ruling reinforced the Belgian Linguistics principle that under A2P1 a person is not entitled to some minimum level of education judged by some objective standard and without regard to the system in the particular State. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:52 am
’ ([2001] 1 AC 127, 201 per Lord Nicholls.) [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
A state court said no. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:20 am
Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Morrison v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm
This duty does not require the state toinitiate a particular investigation; its obligations are met by ensuring that there is a suitable system in place.[2] However, in England and Wales, the traditional style of inquest, as considered in the case of R v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, Ex p Jamieson,[3] is a significant means by which the state meets this obligation. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 10:32 am
Meanwhile Longmore LJ stated that: The question in a case of misuse of private information is whether the information is private, not whether it is true or false. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 7:28 am
The source stated that the police officer “could be” the claimant and that he had reported this to the police. [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]
8 Jul 2010, 10:46 pm
Neither the Refugee Convention, nor, it is worth reminding ourselves, the European Convention on Human Rights, are aimed at guaranteeing universal human rights: So the conditions that prevail in the country in which asylum is sought have no part to play, as a matter of legal obligation binding on all states parties to the Convention, in deciding whether the applicant is entitled to seek asylum in that country: Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL… [read post]
