Search for: "Arden v. State Bar" Results 1 - 20 of 30
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2019, 6:34 am by UKSC Blog
The onus has shifted to the state to justify an interference with a right. [read post]
22 May 2018, 6:53 am by MICHAEL ETIENNE MATRIX
It was about “the measures which the Secretary of State has put in place to discharge the responsibility of determining how to resolve the issue of discrimination to which the bar gives rise” (per Arden LJ at [98]). [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:39 am by Michael Erdman
On August 4, 2010 the Eighth Circuit ruled in Johnson v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:39 am by Michael Erdman
On August 4, 2010 the Eighth Circuit ruled in Johnson v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:39 am by Michael Erdman
On August 4, 2010 the Eighth Circuit ruled in Johnson v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:39 am by Michael Erdman
On August 4, 2010 the Eighth Circuit ruled in Johnson v. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am by INFORRM
The appeal in the Mirror Phone Hacking damages case is due to be heard by Arden, Rafferty and Kitchin LJJ in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday and Wednesday, 20 and 21 October 2015. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 1:44 pm by Giles Peaker
Meanwhile, in a short Judgment, Arden LJ finds the same result, but based simply, she states, on the basis of statutory interpretation: […]the true interpretation of schedule 6 of the LRA and section 144 of LASPOA, it is the intention of Parliament that an application for registration of adverse possession should not be barred by reliance on acts in contravention of section 144 of LASPOA. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 4:09 pm
Court of Appeals in New Orleans (2010-1 Trade Cases ¶76,968), barring price fixing claims against title insurers under the federal “filed rate” doctrine.The home purchasers—alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of title insurance—questioned (1) whether the federal "filed rate" doctrine bars Texas state antitrust and state unfair practices claims where Texas law expressly forbids these practices and (2) whether a federal court of appeals should have… [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 11:30 pm
Full report: Bailii.R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC 32 (27 June 2018)Appeal considering whether the bar on different-sex couples entering into civil partnerships breaches the appellants’ rights under ECHR, art 8, in conjunction with art 14. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 12:39 pm
“Owner” or BusinessRelying on Redevelopment Agency v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:15 am
(CCH Trade Regulation Reporter ¶50,982); and U.S. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am by CMS
He says Parliament may be prorogued for a number of purposes. 14:26: Lord Reed and Lady Arden question Lord Keen QC regarding procedural steps the Government would take in the event that prorogation is declared unlawful by the Court. 14:21: Lord Keen QC submits that “in any view” part 4 of the Interlocuter (the Inner Court’s order) must be recalled. 14:19 Lord Keen QC argues that in so far as the Inner House sought to declare the prorogation unlawful, he will take no issue… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 1:32 pm by Giles Peaker
(It is also worth mentioning that the Bar Pro Bono Unit arranged for some pro bono advice and representation by Robert Brown of Arden Chambers. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 3:12 pm
State Bar, 52 Cal. 2d 310, 320 (1959); Brockway v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:50 am by Kathryn Noble, Olswang
The relevant principle was its counterpart in civil law, res judicata, and in particular cause of action estoppel (ie the failure of an earlier action on its merits will prevent a further cause of action), which if founded, is an absolute bar.  [read post]