Search for: "Cork v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 112
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2008, 5:58 pm
(This is cross-posted from the blog of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, Faculty & Department of Law, University College Cork, Ireland) [read post]
27 May 2012, 5:42 pm by INFORRM
UN member states asked the UK about ‘super-injunctions’, online freedom of expression and the defamation bill: “The UK’s representative at the review, Lord McNally, responded to the questions and recommendations regarding defamation and its impact on freedom of expression by stating that ‘his baby’ aimed to get the balance right between a free media and the right of the individual to privacy, and that it was regarded as a ‘good law’… [read post]
17 May 2015, 1:08 am
Last Wednesday, fellow Kat David performed an astonishing feat in posting a full and detailed account of the UK Supreme Court's hot-off-the-press ruling in Starbucks v British Sky Broadcasting almost before the ink was dry on this seminal case and probably well before their Lordships had replaced the cork in the bottle of their pre-prandial sherry. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:49 pm
United States, 444 U. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:07 am by Marie Louise
(Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: Loosely related state law claims sufficient for supplemental jurisdiction: Von Holdt v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:37 pm by Geoffrey Rapp
Levine, Corking the Cam Newton Loophole, a Sweeping Suggestion, 2 HARVARD JOURNAL OF SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW 342 (2010) Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Hurricane warning flag for Olympic sports: compliance practices in Biediger v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 11:53 am by Edith Roberts
Crown Cork & Seal, in 2010, in which Willett concurred in a decision striking down a statute that shielded a company from successor liability in a tort case. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:02 am by GuestPost
Furthermore, the GRAG draws support for the ECHR decision of Parry v UK to argue that it is within the margin of appreciation afforded to states on this issue to exclude married applicants from recognition. [read post]
24 Jan 2008, 12:08 am
Cross-posted from the blog of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, University College Cork. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 7:44 am by Yvonne Daly
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11 centred on the constitutionality of s.29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, as amended by s.5 of the Criminal Law Act 1976. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 8:42 am by Eoin Daly
Thus, given the inquiry’s  far-reaching impact on Callelly’s reputation, the case is clearly distinguishable from O’Malley v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:05 pm by GuestPost
The recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal in the case of A.H. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 6:29 am
Quite a fact pattern here: Constellation Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 2:46 am by Fiona de Londras
Although the European Court of Human Rights this week struck a blow to the marriage equality campaign in Schalk and Kopf v Austria by holding that Article 12 of the ECHR (the right to marriage) did not oblige states to ensure marriage equality, the reasoning was based on the lack of a European consensus on the matter. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 11:16 am by Eugene Volokh
Or for stating that biological males who view themselves as female should be viewed as men, not as women. [read post]