Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1641 - 1660
of 4,050
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2015, 1:54 pm
In Mohamoud v RB Kensington and Chelsea and Saleem v Wandsworth LBC [2015] EWCA Civ 780, the Court of Appeal were faced with the difficult argument about the interaction between section 11, Children Act 2004 and possession proceedings brought by a local authority against unsuccessful applicants for homelessness assistance. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 9:11 am
Jurisdictional Boundaries of Prior Use within Britain: An analysis of the House of Lords’ judgments in Roebuck v Stirling (1774) and Brown v Annandale (1842)Barbara Henry (University of Hertfordshire)Commentator | Eva Hemmungs Wirtén (Linköping University, Sweden) Two cases, 60 years apart. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 3:08 am
In giving the lead judgment Lord Toulson stated that the judgment of the Court of Appeal itself contained a ruling that the Council acted unlawfully and the authority of its judgment would be no greater or less by making or not making a declaration in the form of the order to the same effect. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 2:43 am
Giving the lead majority judgment Lord Hughes stated that questioning and search under compulsion undoubtedly constitutes an interference with art 8(1). [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 2:34 am
Lords Sumption and Carnwath agreed. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 1:00 am
Original Supreme Court decision However, the House of Lords allowed the appeal by a majority of 3 to 2 in R (Bancoult) v Foreign Secretary (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 2:24 pm
Garcia did not, as a final barrier to her copyright claim, fix her work in any tangible form; a requisite element under copyright in the United States for an interest in the work to arise. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:20 am
The appeal was heard on 16 June 2015 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge and judgment is currently awaited. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 9:00 pm
Consistently with its reasoning in Gasser (Case C-116/02) and Turner v Grovit (Case C-259/02), the Court held in West Tankers that “even though proceedings [to enforce an arbitration agreement via an anti-suit injunction] do not come within the scope of [the Brussels I Regulation], they may nevertheless have consequences which undermine its effectiveness”, if they “prevent a court of another Member State from exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by [the… [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 4:10 pm
Marzen East Carolina University and Florida State University, SSRN. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 4:43 pm
But a few paragraphs later he opines in the same way as Lord Toulson and states that “I agree with Lord Toulson that on the facts here the criminal nature of what the appellant was doing was not an aspect of his private life that he was entitled to keep private”. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 2:07 am
Their pages display the search query playback, stating explicitly that no search results for “MTM Special Ops” were found, and list competing products. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 8:09 am
There's definitely something wrong ...The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 relating to silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here, and this Kat here). [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 2:59 am
Giving the leading judgment Lord Carnwath stated that the question was how the element of chance was provided “in the game”. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 2:28 am
Lord Carnwath stated that until he turned eighteen, for fiscal and administrative purposes, his ordinary residence continued to be in Wiltshire, regardless of where they determined that he should live, including placing him in foster care in South Gloucestershire. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 6:34 am
Lord Kerr (for the minority) noted that REP was the “touchstone” of private life (applying Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457). [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:40 pm
Lord Kerr (for the minority) noted that REP was the “touchstone” of private life (applying Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457). [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 6:31 am
The constitutional question in Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:27 am
” In the minority on this issue, Lord Sumption (with whom Lord Neuberger and Lord Reed agreed) gave a dissenting judgment in which he stated that Zurich should only be liable to IEG in the first instance for 22.08% of the full loss. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 3:08 am
In giving the leading judgment Lord Hodge stated that a fresh procurement is not required where the modifications to the contract are not “substantial”. [read post]
