Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v Miller (case citation: [1982] UKHL 6; [1983] 2 AC 161) is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. Facts [ edit ]
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union ...
R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41 at para. 50 (24 September 2019) On 24 September, the eleven-justice panel of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prerogative power of prorogation was justiciable and the ongoing prorogation of Parliament was both ...
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords case concerning the awarding of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case is considered significant in constitutional terms for its ruling on the extent of ministerial prerogative powers.
United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, 25 March 2008, 549 SCRA 77. where: Neri v. Senate is the name of the case; G.R. No. 180643 is the case docket number originally assigned by the Supreme Court at the time the action was filed with the Court (G.R. stands for General Register) [15] [16] 25 March 2008 is the exact date the decision of this case was ...
An inspired Daniel Dubois reignited his career by stopping Jarrell Miller with just 10 seconds to go in a thrilling heavyweight contest in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The first, which reflects the obvious unsuitability of the courts as the arbiters in planning and related matters, is that the decision to be made, as explained by Lord Greene M R in B Johnson & Co (Builders) Ltd v Minister of Health [1947] 2 All ER 395, 399 is an administrative and not a judicial decision.