Search for: "Connolly v. US"
Results 141 - 160
of 263
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2009, 1:17 pm
Although the public had a general right to be protected from material intended to cause them distress or anxiety, whether in the privacy of their own homes or in the workplace, (Connolly v DPP (2007) EWHC 237 (Admin), (2008) 1 WLR 276), both at common law and under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Convention, freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of assembly and association, also constituted rights jealously safeguarded by English law (Redmond-Bate v DPP… [read post]
13 May 2009, 7:33 am
If passed, it would overturn the Supreme Court decision, Riegel v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Joseph's Hospital Health Center v. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 3:14 pm
In Horne v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 9:14 am
Newell of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm
” That principle, as the court notes, comes from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am
The issue of whether Miller was negligent in shooting plaintiff was therefore resolved in the federal courts and is not before us. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am
The issue of whether Miller was negligent in shooting plaintiff was therefore resolved in the federal courts and is not before us. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
Vopper; Cohen v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 2:31 pm
Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in the "ceded lands" case, Hawaii v. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm
Nevertheless, there may yet be room for arguing that the Magistrates and subsequently the Crown Court breached his Article 10 rights because they should have interpreted the word “menacing”, or perhaps the mens rea requirement, in a more restrictive manner (such an interpretative approach, based on section 3 of the HRA 1998, was used in Connolly v DPP [2008] 1 WLR 276 by Dyson LJ (as he then was) in respect of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act… [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm
Nevertheless, there may yet be room for arguing that the Magistrates and subsequently the Crown Court breached his Article 10 rights because they should have interpreted the word “menacing”, or perhaps the mens rea requirement, in a more restrictive manner (such an interpretative approach, based on section 3 of the HRA 1998, was used in Connolly v DPP [2008] 1 WLR 276 by Dyson LJ (as he then was) in respect of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act… [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 3:05 am
Kevin Brady and Ryan Newell of the Connolly Bove firm prepared this synopsis. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 10:46 am
In Ruffalo v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 4:39 am
., v. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 5:02 am
Bryson's opinion Friday in Lipocine Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 3:35 pm
., v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 2:26 pm
Although Roe v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 6:15 am
Mossbrook; Mossbrook v. [read post]
