Search for: "People v. Spicer" Results 1 - 20 of 43
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jun 2019, 4:34 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Spicer v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1439 (QB) Warby J held that an article’s headline, however defamatory, must be read in context, with the text of the article, in order to arrive at the natural and ordinary meaning. [read post]
31 May 2011, 2:13 pm
  Spicer says that if that's indeed what the statute provides, it's unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 1:56 am by Ben
One would think that Shields has a good case that the uses constitute "fair use" - not least from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Bill Graham Archives v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 12:09 pm by Jordan Brunner
  John Bellinger commented that the Alien Tort Statute case Doe v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 10:51 am by Jordan Brunner
Kenneth also flagged the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Jesner v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 5:06 am by Scott Bomboy
In an original jurisdiction lawsuit, Nebraska and Oklahoma v. [read post]
11 Apr 2021, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
Miller v College of Policing and another, heard 9 and 10 March 2021 (Sharp P,  Haddon-Cave and Simler LJJ) Lachaux v Independent Print, heard  22 and 24 February and 1 March 2021 (Nicklin J) Wright v McCormack, heard 16 and 18 February 2021 (Julian Knowles J) Desporte v Bull, heard 9 February 2021 (Julian Knowles J) Spicer v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, heard 1 to 5 February 2021 (Julian Knowles… [read post]
2 May 2021, 4:46 pm by INFORRM
ASA published its Annual Report 2020 which highlights steps taken to make sure young and vulnerable people are protected from misleading, harmful or irresponsible ads. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 4:26 pm by INFORRM
On 7 June 2019 Warby J handed down judgment in the case of Spicer v Commissioner of Police [2019] EWHC 1439 (QB) (heard 5 June 2019). [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 6:00 am by Josh Blackman
In Part I of this series, I concluded that the “president cannot obstruct justice when he exercises his lawful authority that is vested by Article II of the Constitution. [read post]