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 ]
Supreme Court Judgment (2017) UKSC 5 – Press Summary; R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – High Court, the full judgment; Supreme Court: Article 50 Brexit Appeal – Main Page; Supreme Court statement A response to reactions to Lady Hale's explanation of the Article 50 'Brexit' case 15 November 2016
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.
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.
Case name Citation Date decided Miller v. Pate: 386 U.S. 1: 1967: Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. United States: 386 U.S. 8: 1967: D'Amico v. Pennsylvania: 386 U.S. 8
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 ...
Vem Miller strongly denied in an interview that he planned to assassinate the former president at a rally in Coachella. Man arrested at Trump rally denies assassination plot, threatens to sue ...
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.