Search for: "Lloyd v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 1,477
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2022, 12:05 pm by Robert Chesney, Steve Vladeck
 We are back, and hope you’ll tune in as co-hosts Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck discuss the latest in national security legal news, including: The questions associated with neutrality and co-belligerency (and especially “qualified neutrality”) in relation to US and allied support to Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War The Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay in Lloyd Austin v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:45 am by tracey
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) AR, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 857 (26 July 2011) Thomas & Ors v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862 (26 July 2011) Rust Consulting Ltd v PB Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 899 (26 July 2011) Destiny 1 Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 831 (26 July 2011) MH (Algeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the… [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 8:37 am by Steven Cohen
Facts:  This case (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. [read post]
The UK Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in the Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 case on 10 November 2021 restricting claimants’ ability to bring data privacy class actions in the UK under the (now repealed) Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
The claimant in Lloyd v Google sought damages on behalf of a class of more than 4 million iPhone users affected by Google’s acquisition and use of information generated by their Safari browsers. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Robert McKay
United and combined, i-Law and v-Lex, with the former’s Lloyd’s Law Reports, Building Law Reports, Chinese Maritime and Commercial Law Reports, Medical Law Reports and more, as well as various news reports, might put them in the IV league (and trussed up with the chaotic British Tories). [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 6:28 am by ASAD KHAN
“Precarious” was not, in their Lordships’ view, “a term of art” and was similar but not identical to the guidance imparted in Jeunesse v Netherlands (2015) 60 EHRR 17 whereby family life was rendered precarious from the outset where those “involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host state would from the outset be precarious. [read post]