Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1661 - 1680
of 1,882
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2019, 2:46 am
Boskalis relied on legal authorities on exclusion and limitation clauses, according to which “clarity of contractual language” is required for provisions that “restrict the rights and remedies normally available to a party” (see, inter alia, Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] AC 689). [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:20 am
Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Morrison v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 3:34 am
Franklin also owns several firearms, which the Government contends “have long been recognized as being ‘tools of the drug trade.'” [Doc. 87 at 6 n.2 (quoting in part United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 4:32 am
In Hudson v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 6:40 am
Based on Justice Scalia’s questions in last week’s argument in Doe v. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 2:37 am
The concept is still rather wooly, but the approach remains that of Lord Bingham in M v Secretary of States for Work and Pensions [2006] 2 AC 91, encapsulated by Lady Hale as “the closer the facts come to the protection of the core values of the substantive article, the more likely it is that they fall within its ambit. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 1:31 pm
Held: R (Awua) v Brent London Borough Council [1996] AC 55 suggests that where temporary accommodation is unreasonable for the person to remain in, they again become homeless. [read post]
14 Apr 2024, 8:02 pm
The term ‘Gillick competent’ comes from the case of Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) AC 112. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 3:26 pm
(See pages 508-517 of the article; Ace Insurance v Moose Enterprise Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 724 (Brereton J); Navig8 Pte Ltd v Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry (The Lucky Lady) [2013] EWHC 328 (Comm), [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 104, [2013] 2 CLC 461 (Andrew Smith J)) In assessing the relevance and significance of attributing an obligation to adhere to the chosen law in a choice of law agreement, the internationalist paradigm’s understanding of the fundamental… [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 2:33 pm
Gore (de 1996) y luego en State Farm v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 7:56 am
In last week’s case (Guzman Gonzalez v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 6:36 am
The Federalist states flatly that under the Clause the President must make the appointment “during the recess. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:51 am
This is the state of affairs to which I want to draw attention in this post and to offer a brief critique. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 4:03 pm
Let us take, for example, the leading case of Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, concerning a well known model with a drug problem. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 12:38 pm
The government hold all the aces. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 8:36 am
Last month, the military commission for the matter of United States v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 5:54 am
This test assesses “whether a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, if placed in the same situation as the subject of the disclosure, rather than the recipient, would find the disclosure offensive” (in Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457). [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 12:00 pm
They stated that they then immediately contacted the other side.In short, they tried to put the blame on the client and on Counsel.This didn’t get them very far. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 12:00 pm
They stated that they then immediately contacted the other side.In short, they tried to put the blame on the client and on Counsel.This didn’t get them very far. [read post]
