Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
See R v Mills (disambiguation) for other cases by same name. R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark is a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is a landmark judgment concerning homelessness law and concerned the meaning of vulnerability under s.189(1)(c) of Part VII of the Housing Act. [ 1 ]
In Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [9] Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court: 25. The Supreme Court has not thought it necessary to re-issue the Practice Statement as a fresh statement of practice in the Court’s own name.
Mills v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the meaning of a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the Charter.
When considering necessity in R v Cole (1994) Crim. LR 582 Simon Brown LJ. held that the peril relied on to support the plea of necessity lacked imminence and the degree of directness and immediacy required of the link between the suggested peril and the offence charged. This defendant robbed two building societies in order to repay debts.
Peter D. Roos, a former staff attorney at Harvard University's Center for Law and Education, described Mills as a "leading case" in a series of lawsuits that attempted to provide access to education for children with disabilities. [3] Mills v. Board was a certified class action lawsuit under Rule 23(b)(1) and (2). [4]
Central R. Co. of N. J. v. Mills, 113 U.S. 249 (1885), involved a case where the Court of Claims had dismissed a petition of the claimants, regarding the rejection of two items sued for: (1) labor done and materials furnished by the claimants in constructing the coffer dams, and in performing the work necessarily connected therewith and preliminary to the masonry work for the piers and ...
On 1 August 1900, the trial was held in Supreme Court Monroe County. [7] The defendants (Franklin Mills and the Rochester Folding Box Co.) contended to have the case dismissed over the fact that they had the right to use Roberson's picture and there existed no laws that could restrain them from using the picture.