Search for: "People v Lord"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 1,806
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2023, 3:06 pm
Lights of New York, the first all-talking full-length feature film, will also enter the U.S. public domain in 2024, as will Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novel Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, and Wanda Gág’s Millions of Cats, which is the oldest American picture book still in print. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 4:31 pm
Despite the controversy around these practices, it has never been discussed at the Supreme Court of Canada, until their recent decision in R. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2015, 12:09 am
The majority of people getting marriage licenses, last time I looked, do not go for formal church ceremonies to bless their union. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:16 am
He cited Lord Fraser in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 10:16 am
The last two weeks of planning since my move to Kent have been both enjoyable and productive. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 10:06 am
One case from 1909 where House of Lords first recognized “goodwill”—involved Spaulding, an American company making sports goods. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 12:47 am
[A]re these people lazy? [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 3:30 am
[A]re these people lazy? [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:45 am
Lord Acton (1834-1902), the English historian, famously said that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 9:03 am
Lord have mercy, judges and lawyers must now actually read and analyze the bases of expert witnesses’ opinions, assess validity of studies and conclusions, and present their challenges and evaluations in clear, non-technical language. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 1:06 am
Last week saw promulgation of Gallagher v Gallagher (No.1) (Reporting Restrictions) [2022] EWFC 52, a summary of which you can find here. [read post]
27 May 2012, 8:23 am
Jaguar Shoes v Jaguar Cars: Blame It On The Lawyers! [read post]
25 Mar 2007, 4:00 pm
Legal IT posts 'Bloody foreigners' is a racist taunt, says Lords. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
Because they have no sharp edges, it is a case in which, in Lord Nicholls’ words, “the position is not so clear”; but not one where Article 14 does not apply at all. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
Because they have no sharp edges, it is a case in which, in Lord Nicholls’ words, “the position is not so clear”; but not one where Article 14 does not apply at all. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
Because they have no sharp edges, it is a case in which, in Lord Nicholls’ words, “the position is not so clear”; but not one where Article 14 does not apply at all. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:30 am
When asked about the clause in the bill regarding “intersexuality”, Mr McBride said the clause was designed to deal “with attacking people’s sexual orientation in a vile way…”. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 5:01 am
For sex-related speech, the Supreme Court finally abandoned the test in 1957 in Roth v. [read post]
1 May 2022, 1:45 am
Some people think they do. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 2:08 pm
The English Court encountered this situation recently in R v. [read post]
