Search for: "State v. Briggs" Results 61 - 80 of 367
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2011, 1:45 am by Matthew Ryder QC, Matrix
In the last two years the Supreme Court has grappled with this conundrum in various ways: in relation to control orders; allegations of terrorist financing (SSHD v AF [2009] UKHL 28); compensation for those who have suffered miscarriage of justice (R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18); and criminal conduct as the subject of disciplinary proceedings (R (G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30). [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:26 am by CMS
“Pay now, argue later” is ultimately the decision of the Supreme Court in Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd. [read post]
16 May 2011, 3:07 am by John L. Welch
Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Phillip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 6:53 am by MICHAEL ETIENNE MATRIX
For the same reasons, the domestic courts recognised that this was an issue which fell into a discretionary area of judgment, where they should defer to the Secretary of State. [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 7:49 pm by Matthew Nelson
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., No. 139582, pending decision in University of Michigan Board of Regents v. [read post]
2 Jun 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
Board of Education as Briggs v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 4:18 am by traceydennis
Supreme Court JS (Sri Lanka), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15 (17 March 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256 (16 March 2010) Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 229 (16 March 2010) Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 228 (16 March 2010) FN (Zimbabwe)… [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 8:02 pm by INFORRM
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:56 am by ANDREW BODNAR, MATRIX
In R v Briggs-Price the House held that if prosecutors wished to introduce alleged benefit from offences not proved at the trial they would have to do so to the criminal standard. [read post]