Search for: "Muir v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 68
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jan 2024, 4:46 am by Etienne Farnoux
In this case, X v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2021] EWHC 355 (Fam)), the claimant demanded the recognition by the UK authorities of her child’s adoption in Nigeria. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 9:16 am by CMS
In this post, Jaspal Pachu, Graham Muir and Jasleen Kaur at CMS comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Vermilion Holdings Ltd [2023] UKSC 37, which was handed down on 25 October 2023. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 7:51 am by centerforartlaw
Social clubs must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments.[26] Most museums’ governance make-up and membership structure could be seen as a characteristic of a 501(c)(7) social club rather than a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit.[27] In American Campaign Academy v. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 6:03 am by Eugene Volokh
See also Griswold (explaining "Justice White concurred in [Pico's] judgment without announcing any position on the substantive First Amendment claim"); Muir v. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 11:45 am by Mukarrum Ahmed
The UK Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Vedanta v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20 and Okpabi v Shell [2021] UKSC 3 have granted jurisdiction and allowed such claims to proceed on the merits in English courts. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
Dana Muir analyzes the opinion for this blog. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
Dana Muir analyzes Monday’s second argument, in Thole v. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 3:51 am by Edith Roberts
This blog’s preview came from Dana Muir. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 3:12 am by Marie Nioche
It also contains several case notes, inter alia, a commentary by Horatia Muir Watt on Vedanta v Lungowe, major decision on the parent company’s duty of care and private international law, rendered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 10 April 2019 (see also here). [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]