Search for: "People v Ivey"
Results 1 - 20
of 33
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2017, 7:03 am
Previously the test for “dishonesty” laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 required the prosecution to prove (1) that the actions of the defendant were dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people and (2) that the defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would regard his behaviour as having fallen below those standards. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am
In Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Supreme Court took as its starting point that the second leg of the Ghosh test required the defendant’s acts to be measured against what “society in general expects” [58]. [read post]
5 May 2020, 5:20 am
Was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? [read post]
16 May 2019, 9:44 am
In a statement issued following her signing of the bill, Ivey described the act as “unenforceable” and directly contrary to the precedent set by Roe v. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 11:41 am
The approval is in defiance of the US Supreme Court ruling in Allen v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 2:54 am
The Supreme Court considered the test for dishonesty and concluded that the second leg of the test propounded in R v Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. [read post]
12 May 2011, 2:59 am
The raw Florida oysters that sickened at least 11 people during March and April were contaminated with an unusual but mild strain of cholera. [read post]
20 May 2019, 10:00 am
“They want to challenge Roe v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 10:21 pm
Last week the London Free Press shared findings on online gambling by June Cotte, an Associate Professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario. [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 5:29 am
Parker, R. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 8:41 am
The proper construction of s 1(1) The background to this issue, and to the enactment of s 1(1), is the judgment in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group [2010] EWHC (QB) 1414, in which Tugendhat J considered that there was a “threshold of seriousness” recognised under common law, and in which he favoured a definition that a statement was defamatory if it “… substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards [the… [read post]
29 May 2011, 10:26 am
I can't understand it for you.Apparently I can't understand it for lots of people. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm
The Explanatory Notes refer to Thornton (cited above) and Jameel v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2003] EWCA Civ 1694. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
Goes back 4 years to Obama v. [read post]
24 Sep 2008, 9:53 pm
" "Such appeals to emotion tend to deflect the jurors' attention from issues of fact on the question of guilt or innocence" (People v Bowie, 200 AD2d 511, 513, lv denied 83 NY2d 869), and cause them instead to focus on protecting the victim and correcting an alleged error in the child protective system (see generally People v Ivey, 83 AD2d 788, 789). [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 10:15 am
For years Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act blocked registrations that disparaged a group of people. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 12:55 pm
My experience suggests that many, many people do not know about, or possibly know, but do not care to comply with, this rule. [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
The trial tested a rarely used criminal statute meant to ensure that people comply with congressional subpoenas. [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 10:38 am
The appellate court agreed with her, citing the 2000 Florida Supreme Court case of Ivey v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 2:04 pm
This doctrine has long been used to invalidate laws that ostensibly favor women but are based on, and perpetuate, sex-based norms of proper behavior; and at least two cases, Ivey v. [read post]
