Search for: "BINGHAM v. BINGHAM"
Results 181 - 200
of 515
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2013, 10:55 am
Shelby County v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:17 pm
¶40 (quoting Bingham School v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 8:17 am
Bingham just issued this interesting Legal Alert on Pharos Capital Partners, L.P. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 2:39 pm
Todd Lowtherof Balch & Bingham L.L.P. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:49 am
These were most famously set out by Lord Bingham in by the House of Lords in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC HL [at 31]: The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if justified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are… [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 4:04 pm
On appeal to the House of Lords, the charge was upheld but the interest for me lies in LJ Bingham's analysis at para 7 of whta s 127 is for. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 4:23 am
In Sahin v Turkey (2007) 44 EHRR 5 the Court assumed that the applicant? [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm
The appeal by way of case stated in the “Twitter joke” case (Chambers v DPP) has been allowed. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
See further, Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43; [2004] 1 A.C. 983; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 792; [2003] H.L.R. 75, per Lord Bingham [22] and Birmingham CC v Doherty [2008] UKHL 57, [2009] 1 A.C. 367, [2008] H.L.R. 45, in the written submissions for Birmingham (noted at 391F-G, 392E-F and per Lord Hope at 401E. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
See further, Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43; [2004] 1 A.C. 983; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 792; [2003] H.L.R. 75, per Lord Bingham [22] and Birmingham CC v Doherty [2008] UKHL 57, [2009] 1 A.C. 367, [2008] H.L.R. 45, in the written submissions for Birmingham (noted at 391F-G, 392E-F and per Lord Hope at 401E. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 6:11 am
Harrow Community Support Ltd v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 4:27 pm
On June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Salazar v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 4:24 pm
Patchak (consolidated with Salazar v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 8:55 am
Case C-137/12 European Commission v Council of the European Union is a battle of the Euro-titans, with the European Commission picking on the Council on a matter of policy as well as principle. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 11:15 pm
In last week’s judgment in Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court decided that the words ‘judicial authority’ in s 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 include prosecutors as well as courts. [read post]
27 May 2012, 8:23 am
Jaguar Shoes v Jaguar Cars: Blame It On The Lawyers! [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:04 am
.] : Continuing Professional Development, Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 1 v. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:46 pm
But even if it's just treated as symbolic expression, it is still constitutionally protected, as cases such as Texas v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:47 am
In Salazar v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 5:46 pm
The Upper Tribunal has handed down judgment in the case of Raed Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/21/21631/2011. [read post]
