Search for: "Gent v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 77
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am by ELLIOT GOLD
In Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Supreme Court took as its starting point that the second leg of the Ghosh test required the defendant’s acts to be measured against what “society in general expects” [58]. [read post]
In Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court (hearing a civil case) did away with the second limb of the Ghosh test, thus making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions irrelevant. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 2:54 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Supreme Court considered the test for dishonesty and concluded that the second leg of the test propounded in R v Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. [read post]
 On 30 April 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment confirming that the test for dishonesty in criminal law is that set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos, as opposed to the much criticised Ghosh test. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 10:06 am
"Cuando la mayoría de la gente piensa de las personas afectadas por accidentes de conductores adolescentes, piensan de los adolescentes en el volante. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 10:06 am
"Cuando la mayoría de la gente piensa de las personas afectadas por accidentes de conductores adolescentes, piensan de los adolescentes en el volante. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (expedited), heard 13 Jul 2017. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 8:07 am by Ezra Rosser
  Abstract below: Many accounts of Gideon v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (expedited), heard 13 Jul 2017. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (expedited), heard 13 Jul 2017. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 8:22 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
    [1] Gent v Strone [2] Ironically the plaintiff could have demanded full payment of his statutory entitlement which he did not do. [read post]