Search for: "People v. A.C" Results 1 - 20 of 63
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2015, 12:03 pm
After A.C. and C.C. left the house, Woods sent A.C. threatening text messages. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 7:29 am
Reid Nelson from the Capital and Conflicts Appeals Office won in State v. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 7:45 am
  Here is another one:The Court of Appeals of Kansas' recent opinion in State v. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 3:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
& A.C., Inc. v All City Testing & Balancing Corp., 84 AD3d 1349 (2d Dept 2011). [read post]
1 May 2015, 3:27 am by Arden Chambers
In a claim for possession brought by a public authority, the European Convention on Human Rights, art 8, gives an occupier the right to challenge the proportionality of the eviction even if his right of occupation under domestic law has come to an end: Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 A.C. 104; [2011] H.L.R. 7; Hounslow LBC v Powell and other cases [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2 A.C. 186; [2011] H.L.R. 23. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 11:57 am by Mary Whisner
Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) 562, link (bottler's liability for snail in ginger beer)Mabo v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 10:50 pm
The Court adopted the test of Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605 in establishing duty of care: Was the injury and loss reasonably foreseeable? [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The appeal The Court of Appeal set out ringing statements in favour of open justice from cases such as Scott v Scott [1913] A.C. 417, and A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am by S S
(Flashbacks to Malcolm v Lewisham [2008] 1 A.C. 1399.) [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 2:09 pm
Judge Jarman QC found that s.35 was ambiguous and, hence, that he was entitled to have regard to the Hansard debates that surrounded s.35 and the subsequent amendments, applying Pepper v Hart [1993] A.C. 593, HL. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:00 am by Law is Cool
Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 8:47 am by Rosalind English
In this appeal, the squatters submitted that in the light of legal developments in the area of trespass, it was time to acknowledge, as the Supreme Court had in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6, [2011] 2 A.C. 104 and Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] 2 A.C. 186, that the rule in McPhail that there was no discretion to suspend a possession order against squatters had to be relaxed in order to comply with Article 8. [read post]