Search for: "Commonwealth v. Kerr" Results 1 - 20 of 73
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2023, 10:34 am by Orin S. Kerr
   Unless I'm missing something, Valdez joins the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 7:38 am by INFORRM
That was a threshold condition, and not question of discretion, R (Omar) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] QB 112 [30]. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 2:46 am by Orin S. Kerr
  Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down what I believe is the first appellate decision on the question, Commonwealth v. [read post]
16 Feb 2020, 11:31 pm by Orin S. Kerr
Cal. 2017) (arrest by state officer "needed to be supported by probable cause based on the elements of those state laws"); Commonwealth v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am by UKSC Live Blogging
  1538: Aidan O’Neill QC submits that the role of this court is to rebalance the constitution. 1530: Aidan O’Neill QC refers to the decision in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture at page 1061 of the decision. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 4:00 am by SHG
As that well-known legal wag Orin Kerr put it, why bother? [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 4:21 pm by Orin Kerr
I was very pleased that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on my article recently in Commonwealth v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 4:21 pm by Orin Kerr
I was very pleased that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on my article recently in Commonwealth v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:05 am by JULIE BALL, TRAINEE, MATRIX CHAMBERS
However, the burden of the submissions resisting the appeal falls to the two interested parties: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Government Communications Headquarters. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 3:14 pm by Orin Kerr
But a few days after I posted my draft, the Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court invited amici to submit briefs on this exact question in a case called Commonwealth v. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:12 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Lord Kerr and Lady Hale, dissenting on the issue of improper motive, considered that the Court of Appeal should have recognised that there was a substantial possibility that the Administrative Court would have taken a different view of the evidence heard in cross-examination if they had admitted the cable and the case had proceeded to its conventional conclusion. [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Bancoult No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, heard 28-29 Jun 2017. [read post]