Search for: "Hale v. State"
Results 261 - 280
of 1,073
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2012, 10:00 pm
The fundamental inquiry is whether the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state, to such a degree that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am
It is noted by him that this principle has not been developed to the same degree in Scotland as it may have been south of the border. 1544: Aidan O’Neill QC states that there is no ‘No-deal’ statute. 1542: Lady Hale states that there is always a difficulty faced by the courts as to whether the court should accept the agreement of the parties (referring to the Miller case). [read post]
15 Dec 2007, 5:10 am
S.L. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 1:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
Lady Hale adjourns the Court for lunch until 14:00. 1303: Lord Pannick QC says authorities on dissolution are not good precedents as this power no longer exists and was personal to the Monarch. 1300: Lord Pannick QC accepts that the authorities sug [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:04 am
R. and H. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am
The Secretary of State and Somerset appealed to the Supreme Court. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 5:32 am
ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011) – Read judgment This case (see yesterday’s summary) is illustrative of two misconceptions about rights that we are all in thrall to from time to time. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 7:22 am
SHELLE HALE, __ N.J. [read post]
6 May 2010, 11:39 am
Hale, No. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 8:02 am
So let's hear all of our DeSantis judges make a speech today against Gideon v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 1:23 pm
The Court of Appeal had found that it was possible to make such a possession order as an extension of Drury v the Secretary of State[2004] 1 WLR 1906. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
Facts The facts of these cases can be very briefly stated. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
Facts The facts of these cases can be very briefly stated. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 5:06 pm
U.S. (09-1298) and Boeing v. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 11:51 am
Rep. 514 (1920); Hale v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 2:26 am
Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale also stated that even if the court had been able to find the possession order disproportionate to her rights under art 8, the appellant could not assume that this would have led to the order being refused. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
By a majority (Lords Hope, Walker and Lady Hale dissenting), the court held that the fact that the appellants would have been lawfully detained was relevant to damages rather than to liability. [read post]
