Search for: "State v. R. S." Results 81 - 100 of 72,264
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2019, 3:10 pm by Heather Donkers
Heather’s Legal Summaries: R v Trinchi, 2019 ONCA 356 R v Trinchi is the most recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in a string of cases related to the offence of voyeurism under s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code (see our previous post on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Jarvis). [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am by Ben Henriques, Corker Binning
In brief, the case of R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470 had stated (without the court having heard full argument) that the previous case of R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 legitimised two approaches to defining ‘substantial’ in the context of diminished responsibility. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 2:13 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Court held that they should depart from the decision in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 AC 484. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 9:19 pm by Patent Docs
Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated opinion in a trademark case directed to what it means for a trademark to be generic, and hence not subject to registration, in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:10 am by Eleanor Mitchell, Matrix
The Supreme Court will spend the first half of this week hearing the appeals in three related cases: R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, R (A), and R (Rutherford). [read post]
On 18 February 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its much awaited judgment in the appeal of R v Jogee [2013] EWCA Crim 1433, which was consolidated with the Privy Council appeal of Ruddock v The Queen JCPC 2015/0020. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 7:26 am by Eric Goldman
July 11, 2023) The post Reddit Defeats Lawsuit Over Removal of r/WallStreetBets Moderator’s Privileges–Rogozinski v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 8:42 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
While Paulick’s argument is somewhat confusing, for reasons we will soon relate, we deem the issue to be whether there was reasonable suspicion for the state trooper to stop him. [read post]