Search for: "Ellis v. Phillips" Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2023, 12:37 am by Frank Cranmer
Speakers include Professor Norman Doe; Morag Ellis KC; The Revd Alexander McGregor; Edward Dobson; and The Revd Stephen Coleman. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:06 am by dferriero
Ford Presidential LibraryKristin Phillips, Public Affairs Specialist, the Gerald R. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:06 am by dferriero
Ford Presidential LibraryKristin Phillips, Public Affairs Specialist, the Gerald R. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 12:00 am by Smita Ghosh
In the London Review of Books, but behind a paywall, are a review of Entick v. [read post]
Another example would be the understanding of the concept of jurisdiction which we finally resolved in Smith and Ellis (Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41). [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 1:00 pm by Mark Murakami
Matteoni, Matteoni O’Laughlin & Hechtman, San Jose, California, Edward V. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
17 Dec 2012, 2:30 am by INFORRM
This week’s resolved cases include: Dolan-Powers v The Observer, Clause 1, 14/12/2012 Weston Area Health NHS Trust v Weston, Worle & Somerset Mercury, Clause 1, 10/12/2012 Lord Hunt, chair of the PCC, has appointed Lord Chris Smith (former Labour culture secretary), Simon Jenkins (former editor of the Times) and Lord Phillips (former president of the supreme court) as unpaid special advisers to help set up a new press regulator. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 10:28 am by WSLL
Case Name: BRYAN ELLIS PHELPS v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 12:31 am by INFORRM
On Wednesday 28 March 2012, Tugendhat J handed down three reserved judgments: in the cases of Jeeg Global v Hare (heard 20 March 2012), Church v MGN [2012] EWHC 693 (QB) (heard 15 March 2012) and Citation v Ellis Whittam (No.2) [2012] EWHC 764 (QB) (heard 14 March 2012). [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 5:50 am by INFORRM
Phillips, in favour of reform, finds it a “considered document which reaffirms the coalition’s commitment to protecting free speech” but argues there is still some way to go. [read post]