Search for: "Phillips v. Moore" Results 61 - 80 of 146
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2012, 4:12 am by INFORRM
  The list of witnesses is available here and includes Lords Black and Hunt (Monday 9 July 2012), Michelle Stanistreet and Martin Moore (Tuesday 10 July 2012) and Angela Phillips (CCMR), and Hugh Tomlinson QC (Friday 13 July 2012). [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 12:31 am by INFORRM
On the same day Moore-Bick LJ gave the defendant permission to appeal in the case of Bento v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:47 am by 1 Crown Office Row
In this case the judge found that the supporting facts were true and verified as such (Lord Phillips at [87] and Lord Mance at [167]). [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:28 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC
In this case the judge found that the supporting facts were true and verified as such (Lord Phillips at [87] and Lord Mance at [167]). [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 am by INFORRM
In this case the judge found that the supporting facts were true and verified as such (Lord Phillips at [87] and Lord Mance at [167]). [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 2:05 am by Sheppard Mullin
In so concluding, Thorner reiterated the axiom that claim terms are to be afforded the ordinary and customary meanings a skilled artisan would employ, see e.g., Phillips v. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 10:40 am by Gritsforbreakfast
"False convictions occur for a vast array of reasons, but under Texas habeas law, proving prosecutors violated Brady v. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 12:39 am by Wessen Jazrawi
In the courts Hurley & Moore, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation & Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin) (17 February 2012). [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am by INFORRM
On Wednesday 1 February 2012, judgment was handed down in the cases of Phillips v NGN and Coogan v NGN, (heard 28 and 29 November 2011). [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
On the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism blog, Alex Antoniou analyses the recent decision in R v Peacock. [read post]