Search for: "Lord v. Hall et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2012, 3:15 am
9 new acquisitions for the Osgoode Hall Law School Library, including 4 from 2012: K 955 C557 2012 Climate change liability : transnational law and practice edited by Richard Lord … [et al.]. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:11 am
Chisum … [et al.]. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 2:30 am
He referenced the case of R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg discussed earlier today to support his submission on behalf of the government that when Parliament wants to exercise control over the prerogative power then it has done so expressly. 16.21: In response to a query from Lord Mance about the relevance of the legislation after the ECA 1972, James Eadie QC submits that as Article 50 was not in existence until 2008, the… [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:10 am
Prisoner Votes… Carl Gardner, writing at his Head of Legal blog, considers the current position on the right of prisoners to vote in a most useful analysis of the UK Supreme Court judgment: R (Chester) v Justice Secretary, McGeoch v Lord President. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:10 am
Prisoner Votes… Carl Gardner, writing at his Head of Legal blog, considers the current position on the right of prisoners to vote in a most useful analysis of the UK Supreme Court judgment: R (Chester) v Justice Secretary, McGeoch v Lord President. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 9:34 am
The Court evidently was persuaded by survey evidence that confusion is likely.Domaines Pinnacle Inc. v Constellation Brands Inc. et al. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:04 am
45 new acquisitions for the Osgoode Hall Law School Library, including 29 from 2012: BJ 1531 W44 2012 What matters? [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
The House of Lords did not pursue this interpretation in Knowsley, largely because Counsel for all parties (including Jan Luba QC) submitted that the then Housing and Regeneration Act would remedy this issue via the replacement tenancy, and in view of the may thousands of cases that had already been based on Thompson et al. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
The House of Lords did not pursue this interpretation in Knowsley, largely because Counsel for all parties (including Jan Luba QC) submitted that the then Housing and Regeneration Act would remedy this issue via the replacement tenancy, and in view of the may thousands of cases that had already been based on Thompson et al. [read post]
26 Dec 2008, 12:20 am
Dibdin et al., [1912] A.C. 533 (QL), the Lords decided that a writ of prohibition should not be granted to restrain the Arches Court from admonishing a clergyman of the Church of England who refused communion to a man and his deceased wife’s sister. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 7:48 am
Caslavsky, 45 B.C.A.C. 62, and stated the following: A more recent case from this Court along similar lines is Brucks et al. v. [read post]
23 May 2010, 3:11 am
Grant et al, 2010 BCSC 682 the claim concerned alleged defamatory statements made by a police officer to the plaintiff’s employer stemming from [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 12:34 pm
Essentially Craig v. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 1:40 am
Quick links Stephanie Biden et al: Bates Wells: Faith-based Organisations 2023 Update. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:52 am
An Epitome of Great Legal Classics
1 v. (1915) Hughes, William Taylor
Office of Constable: Comprising the Laws Relating to High, Petty, and Special Constables, Headboroughs, Tithingmen, Borsholders, and Watchmen, with an Account of Their Institution and Appointment
1 v. (1840) Willcock, John William
On Conveyancers' Evidence
1 v. (1839) Coventry, Thomas
On the Admissibility of Confessions and… [read post]
9 May 2007, 7:52 am
Little Company of Mary Hospital and Health Care Centers, et al., Nos. 1-06-1707 & 1-06-1814, consolidated. [read post]
11 May 2007, 9:35 am
Little Company of Mary Hospital and Health Care Centers, et al., Nos. 1-06-1707 & 1-06-1814, consolidated. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 716 (Tex. 1997) (holding, in accord with the weight of judicial authority, “that the requirement of a more than 50% probability means that epidemiological evidence must show that the risk of an injury or condition in the exposed population was more than double the risk in the unexposed or control population”); id. at at 719 (rejecting isolated statistically significant associations when not consistently found among studies) Silicone Cases Hall… [read post]
15 Dec 2019, 4:05 pm
Jay J then heard an application in the case of Wright v Granath before Jay J. [read post]
