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 ...
Miller v. United States , 357 U.S. 301 (1958), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court , which held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.
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 ...
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.
The cold case killing of a Wisconsin hitchhiker has been solved 50 years later thanks to a DNA breakthrough from evidence pulled from a hat that the accused killer left behind at the scene.
The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords held by a majority (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Roskill) that the NFSE did not have a sufficient interest in challenging decisions concerning other taxpayers, and nor did taxpayers generally in others affairs, unlike ratepayers (Arsenal FC v Ende [1979] AC 1). The question of sufficient ...