Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Digest of the Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Victoria, from AD 1846 to AD 1871. Charles F Maxwell. 1871. George Wilson Waterhouse, Francis William Edmondson. A Digest of Reported Cases in the Supreme Court, Court of Insolvency, and the Courts of Mines and Vice-Admiralty of the Colony of Victoria, from 1861 to 1885. C F Maxwell. 1886.
R v Davidson; Court: Supreme Court of Victoria: Decided: 26 May 1969: Citations [1969] VicRp 85, [1969] VR 667: Court membership; Judge sitting: Menhennitt J: Case opinions; For an abortion to be not unlawful, the person performing the abortion must have an honest and reasonable belief that the act was:
The Supreme Court of Victoria is located on the corner of Lonsdale and William Streets, Melbourne CBD, at the same intersection as the Melbourne Magistrates' Court and the County Court of Victoria. The main buildings for the Supreme Court are located at the corner of William and Lonsdale Streets in Melbourne and in nearby buildings. [3]
Ferguson concurred with the Court of Appeal 2–1 majority rejecting the appeal, which was subsequently overruled by the High Court. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] On 5 September 2024, it was announced that Ferguson would retire as Chief Justice of Victoria and as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria with effect from 2 February 2025.
Following the remand of the case to district court, Congress in 2006 passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which essentially overturned the Supreme Court's Moseley decision. The district court applied the new law and granted summary judgment in favor of Victoria's Secret and issued an injunction against the use of the name Victor's Little ...
King v. Cogdon (1950) is a criminal case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia where a woman successfully defended herself against a homicide charge using the defence of (non-insane) automatism. The case was not formally reported but the case has been referenced both by legal scholars and those in other disciplines. [1] [2]
Michael and Victoria appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, [1] [5] which heard arguments on October 11, 1988. [6] Michael contended that he had a liberty interest in his relationship with Victoria and that the Due Process Clause required that he have an opportunity to be heard before he could be deprived of that liberty interest. [1]
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick.