Search for: "State v. Peacock" Results 41 - 60 of 70
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
11 Jan 2012, 8:00 am by Rob Robinson
Ease the Burden With the Right Policy - (Marisa Peacock) Wikileaks Backers Lose Battle to Keep Twitter Data from U.S. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 12:53 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
This is a curiously arbitrary list which now needs re-visiting in light of the judgment in R v Peacock. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
Terry, No. 150012/2012, Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York. [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 4:16 pm by Charon QC
This week also brought ‘Fisting’ to the fore on twitter: Obscenity trial – the law is not suitable for a digital age Myles Jackman in the Guardian: “I welcome the jury’s verdict but the OPA means the state is still capable of acting as a voyeur in the bedroom” I need not trouble you with the facts of R v Peacock. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 3:15 am by Laura Sandwell
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 2:45 am by Laura Sandwell
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 4:00 am by Gary P. Rodrigues
Treatment of multiple jurisdictions - In a federal state like Canada, it is necessary to clearly address the issue of multiple jurisdictions in the text. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 9:48 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Peacock argues the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle because the officer was unsure whether Peacock's license was still suspended and could not discern whether Peacock was the driver. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:05 pm by Bryan Johnson
  The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held in Ware v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 6:37 pm by Brian Shiffrin
(People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; Gordon v People, 33 NY 501 [1865]; Graves v United States, 150 US 118, 121 [1893]).Importantly, this rule applies even where a party is not required to produce any evidence or that type of evidence. [read post]