Search for: "Hale v. Brown"
Results 121 - 140
of 166
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2024, 7:39 pm
The specter of Dunning School history haunted oral argument in Anderson v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
21 Apr 2024, 2:35 pm
Brown, 564 U.S. 915,919 (2011) (distinguishing “general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked jurisdiction”. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Lords Phillips and Brown (with whom Lord Rodger agrees) dissent and hold that because the appellants would have been lawfully detained the Secretary of State is not liable to them in false imprisonment: [319]-[334], [343]-[360]. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 3:27 am
Lady Hale, Lord Brown and Lord Mance each add further comments of their own. [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 10:42 pm
Brown, 564 U. [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:09 am
This was a point of appeal from Kanu v Southwark (our report). [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 5:52 pm
Bollinger, and Grutter v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 4:40 am
That may be because the effect of Baroness Hale’s February 2011 decision in ZN Tanzania [2011] UKSC 4 had not been absorbed. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 12:59 pm
In Courtroom 2, on Thursday 16 June 2011, the case of R v Smith will be heard by Lords Phillips, Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Collins and Lord Wilson. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm
This week there are three linked appeals to be heard in the Supreme Court from Monday 14 March to Thursday 17 March 2011 by Lords Phillips, Hope and Rodger, Lady Hale and Lords Clarke, Brown and Dyson: R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal; Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); and R (MR (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:59 pm
Lord Roger and Lord Brown were of the same view, while Lady Hale thought the distinction between “disciplinary” and “precautionary” was unhelpful. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 5:52 am
Since Daimler AG v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 8:28 pm
Dancy, 83 N.C. 608, 609 (1880) (quoting 1 Hale’s P.C. 628); accord State v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:28 am
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH E. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:18 pm
As Baroness Hale put [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 7:55 am
The starting point for the majority (Lords Phillips, Brown, Collins, Kerr and Dyson) was that every wrong should have a remedy, unless it was in the public interest to grant immunity: whilst the minority (Lord Hope and Lady Hale) were concerned of the chilling effect that abolishing immunity might have, and felt that such a fundamental rule change should be left to Parliament, the majority were undeterred by such considerations, pointing to the fact that since Hall… [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
In Say v Smith (1563) Plowd 269, 272, Anthony Brown J said that “every contract sufficient to make a lease for years ought to have certainty in three limitations, viz in the commencement of the term, in the continuance of it, and in the end of it … and words in a lease, which don’t make this appear, are but babble.”25. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
In Say v Smith (1563) Plowd 269, 272, Anthony Brown J said that “every contract sufficient to make a lease for years ought to have certainty in three limitations, viz in the commencement of the term, in the continuance of it, and in the end of it … and words in a lease, which don’t make this appear, are but babble.”25. [read post]
