Search for: "Huntley v. Huntley" Results 1 - 20 of 61
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Mar 2009, 3:14 am
High Court (Chancery Division) Tann v Herrington [2009] EWHC 445 (Ch) (10 March 2009) High Court (Queen’s Bench) Huntley v Simmonds [2009] EWHC 406 (QB) (05 March 2009) Al Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 397 (QB) (05 March 2009) Huntley v Simmonds [2009] EWHC 405 (QB) (13 February 2009) High Court (Family Division) K v K [2008] EWHC [...] [read post]
11 May 2010, 2:57 am by traceydennis
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Huntley & Anor v Armes [2010] EWCA Civ 396 (11 May 2010) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Crown Prosecution Service v Neish [2010] EWCA Crim 1011 (06 May 2010) High Court (Administrative Court) Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) (10 May 2010) High Court (Family Division) PM v KH & Anor [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam) (30 April 2010) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 11:47 am by Stephen Bilkis
Page 1 2009 NY Slip Op 51445(U) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 2:43 pm by Bystander
So a young person who, say, steals a bike in a moment of drunken idiocy might find that conviction for theft emerging 25 years later when he is applying for a senior post in a sensitive area.Without Huntley, it's perfectly possible that none of this would have happened.The other case that comes to mind is R v Witchelo (1992) 13 Cr.App.R.S. 371. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 12:14 pm by Stephen Bilkis
First, as the defendant has argued, there is the position articulated in People v Stridiron, 175 Misc 2d 16 (Criminal Ct Queens County 1997), where the court established a four-part test for determining whether a Domestic Incident converts a complaint to an information.1 The first Page 3 prong of the Stridiron test, which is what is at issue in the instant case, is that the factual allegations of a Domestic Incident Report "must contain every element of the factual allegations set… [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 3:52 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Curtis v R [2010] EWCA Crim 123 (09 February 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) O’Beirne v Hudson [2010] EWCA Civ 52 (09 February 2010) Drew v Whitbread [2010] EWCA Civ 53 (09 February 2010) B, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 55 (09 February 2010) W (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 57 (09 February 2010) Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2010] EWCA Civ 33 (09 February… [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:33 am by Charles Sartain
This doctrine was most recently set forth in twin decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2009: Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:19 pm by James Eckert
In People v McClean, decided June 10th, the Court of Appeals held that, while right to counsel deprivations are normally reviewable even in the absence of an objection, the record must be clear that there was a deprivation, so a form of preservation requirement sneaks in through the back door. [read post]
7 Mar 2010, 4:00 pm by James Eckert
In my opinion, and here's the shiny object in the weeds that I wanted to get to, the People have a burden under People v Huntley (15 NY2d 72 [1965]) to establish that the statement is voluntary before it can be admitted:"the jury passes on voluntariness only after the judge has fully and independently resolved the issue against the accused’ and has made express findings upon the disputed fact question of voluntariness." 710.30 doesn't reduce the People's burden on voluntariness… [read post]