Search for: "Spillers v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 51
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2024, 3:44 pm
According to the USSC: 9% had little or no prior criminal history (Criminal History Category I); 7% were CHC II; 8% were CHC III; 2% were CHC IV; 5% were CHC V; 9% were CHC VI. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 8:33 am
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Medtronic v. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 4:30 pm
“Cooperation between counsel and good-faith efforts by them to resolve disputes without judicial intervention are essential to the efficient and expeditious administration of justice in this State” Spiller v. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 5:39 pm
“Cooperation between counsel and good-faith efforts by them to resolve disputes without judicial intervention are essential to the efficient and expeditious administration of justice in this State” Spiller v. [read post]
Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on, Part 1, Sections 1 to 3 – Brett Wilson LLP
28 Jan 2020, 4:39 pm
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lachaux, it will often be best to leave the matter for trial (see, for example, Steyn J, in James v Saunders [2019] EWHC 3265 (QB) at [16]-[17]), although as indicated by Warby J in Hamilton v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 59 (QB) there will be cases where the issue can sensibly be dealt with at a preliminary trial. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 6:41 am
State v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 10:45 am
Can’t Live Without It, LLC v. [read post]
11 Nov 2017, 2:31 am
The decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) clarifies the application of the statutory defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 3:31 am
This requirement makes the reader aware of the subject matter of the comment, without which justification for the defence will be lacking (Joseph v Spiller [2011] 1 AC 852). [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 12:32 pm
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 12:32 pm
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 7:55 am
See Hutchens v. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 7:55 am
See Hutchens v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 11:30 am
State, 123 S.W.3d 82, 90 (Tex.App.2003) (reversing conviction for disorderly conduct where the defendant showed his middle finger to the driver of another vehicle while passing on a highway”); State v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 4:30 am
In the most recent case on the defence before the Supreme Court, Spiller & Anor v Joseph & Ors [2010] UKSC 53, the term “inference” appears no less than 39 times. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 4:47 pm
There is extensive caselaw on this issue, culminating in the Supreme Court case of Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53 which is likely to be extremely persuasive if not technically binding. [read post]
2 Mar 2013, 1:58 am
There was, in my view, no allegation of scandal beyond the stated facts. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 3:50 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Crocs Europe BV v Anderson & Anor (t/a Spectrum Agencies) [2012] EWCA Civ 1400 (30 October 2012) McCarrick v Hunter [2012] EWCA Civ 1399 (30 October 2012) Joyce v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1398 (30 October 2012) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Gregory v Benham [2012] EWHC 2971 (QB) (26 October 2012) Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2012] EWHC 2958 (QB) (26 October 2012)… [read post]
17 May 2012, 2:26 pm
Spillers, 2007 UT 13, ¶ 10, 152 P.3d 315 (quoting State v. [read post]
