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 ]
The case was only the second case heard by eleven justices in the Supreme Court's history; the first was R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), which delivered an 8–3 verdict that the royal prerogative could not be used to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
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 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.
It also mentions Miller I, which I note has a significance section: "Miller & Cherry is a case that will be discussed centuries from now. It is considerably more innovative, and more significant, than the first Miller case of 2017, in which the same court decided that the government could not use its foreign affairs prerogative to give notice ...
Miller v R [1977] 2 SCR 680 is a Canadian Bill of Rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Criminal Code provisions relating to the death penalty were challenged as a violation of the right against "cruel and unusual" punishment under section 2(b) of the Bill of Rights. Justice Laskin, for the majority, upheld the laws.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.