Search for: "S. v. D."
Results 141 - 160
of 68,664
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2024, 3:08 pm
The post D. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 2:09 am
CMCS Common Market Commercial Services AVV v Taylor; Taylor v Stoutt and others [2011] EWHC 324 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 57 “There was no difference in principle between the ambit of a solicitor’s duty to the court in relation to the conduct and supervision of disclosure of documents and the conduct and supervision of any redaction of disclosable doccuments prior to inspection. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 9:55 am
In Cheeks v. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 9:59 pm
District Court Judge for the District of Delaware decided a veritable plethora of post-trial motions (by both parties) in Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 7:40 am
Jan D. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 12:15 am
In Cress v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 4:28 am
R v Rochford; [2010] WLR (D) 220 “A failure by a defendant to comply with the requirements of ss 5(5) and 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to provide a defence statement containing the general nature of his defence, did not constitute a contempt of court and was only punishable with sanctions specified in s 11 of the 1996 Act, of a court or other party being permitted to make comment on that failure, or the court or jury being permitted to… [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 2:09 am
Birmingham City Council v Ali and others; Moran v Manchester City Council (Women's Aid Federation of England and another intervening) [2009] UKHL 36; [2009] WLR (D) 221 “Although it had not been reasonable for families to remain in their current accommodation indefinitely, the local housing authority had been entitled to leave them there in the short [...] [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 1:02 pm
La notion de "includes", "including" n'est pas limitative, de sorte que la loi peut s'appliquer à d'autres situations encore. [read post]
17 Sep 2023, 9:17 pm
D. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 4:23 am
R v Ahmed; [2010] WLR (D) 219 “The act of procuring the miscarriage of a woman’s child did not, by itself, amount to an offence known to English law. [read post]
21 May 2008, 12:38 am
R v Bassett; [2008] WLR (D) 157 “For an offence of voyeurism to be committed, within the definition in s 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, there had to be a private act which involved parts of the body for which people would normally expect privacy, as defined by s 68(1). [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 2:33 am
Essex Trading Standards v Singh; [2009] WLR (D) 81 “In order to acquit a defendant of a charge of unauthorised use of registered trade marks in relation to goods, contrary to s 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, under the statutory defence provided by s 92(5) of the Act, it was not enough for the [...] [read post]
25 Jun 2016, 8:24 pm
Stein of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will examine the Supreme Court's decision in the Cuozzo v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 12:31 pm
Benedict v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 2:46 am
Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 40; [2009] WLR (D) 312 “A defendant's right to a fair trial was absolute and he was entitled to explain his case, however improbable, without constantly being subjected to the judge's sarcasm and hostility. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 2:14 am
Watkins v Woolas [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB); [2010] WLR (D) 288 “S 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which imposed the penalties for an election candidate found guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, was compatible with the right to freedom of expression contained in art 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 2:25 am
Regina v Newell [2012] EWCA Crim 650; [2012] WLR (D) 105 “A statement made on a plea and case management hearing form by the defendant’s counsel, although admissible in principle as a matter of law, should not, in the exercise of the court’s discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE’), be admitted in evidence against the defendant at trial, provided that the case had been conducted in accordance… [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 3:00 am
My guess is that the Court’s December 2023 opinion in State v. [read post]
