Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Hughes"
Results 41 - 60
of 776
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2020, 12:45 am
The proposed class is vast, comprising an estimated 46.2 million people. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 4:33 pm
This is the second time that the Strasbourg Court has considered the right to be forgotten (we wrote about the Court’s judgment in the Article 8 case of ML & WW v Germany, 28 June 2018, in an earlier post). [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 1:47 am
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 6:33 am
That Court is due to hear an appeal, in the case of Trkulja v. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 9:05 am
In Peeler v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 3:36 pm
The Ninth Circuit in Mendez v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 10:19 am
The real loser in that election, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent in Bush v. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 9:40 am
Time Magazine asked seven historians for suggestions of people for President Trump to pardon. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 5:25 pm
My Monday Washington Examiner column revisits the controversy over last week's ABC News/Washington Post poll, and asks why "news organizations" waste time, money and ink on national polls of people who aren't going to v [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 8:53 am
In a 1994 print edition an article in Le Soir reported, among other things, on a car accident that had caused the death of two people and injured three others (“the Article”. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 4:09 pm
The Court considered the recent analysis of the English High Court’s power to grant injunctions in the case of Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Limited ([2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch))(see our discussion here). [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:13 am
This is because the case will be suitable to proceed as a class action if some issues, including common impact, may be resolved for a class of people using common evidence at a common issues trial. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm
The value of the Internet and of search engines is that people using them do so because they believe that they will find true information, or at least that those who publish the information believe that it is true” [104]. [read post]
8 May 2018, 6:20 am
I was one of, say, ten people troubled by this decision. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
In Part One of this column, I considered the case of Maryland v. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 4:14 pm
Google doesn’t like it (Google tends to like using other people’s content for free; Google Books is a good example) and at a minimum wants a number of changes in the draft legislation, such as clearer definition of how much content constitutes a snippet. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
Under the rubric of special needs, the Court has approved of such practices as suspicionless visual strip searches of people entering the general population of a detention facility, in Florence v. [read post]
2 May 2008, 11:03 am
Hugh C. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
Their position was analogous to that of the claimant in Burnip v Birmingham City Council, who herself required overnight care. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
You can’t have such incompetent people driving taxis, people who know so little about the city, and think that they took actual exams. [read post]
