发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Essential Cases: Public Law最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 39, Supreme Court R(关于公法项目的应用)诉司法大臣[2016]UKSC 39，最高法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0040
T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 39, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0040","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 39, Supreme Court. The Court was asked to consider whether the Henry VIII powers granted under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 permitted the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce a residency test into the provisions regulating legal aid. The case raises wider questions about the oversight and review of Henry VIII powers. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121706031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords A(及其他)诉内政部国务大臣[2004]UKHL 56，上议院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0001
T. Webb
{"title":"A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the Human Rights Act 1998, the willingness of the courts to engage with national security matters and, by extension, considered how key constitutional principles should shape the courts’ approach to the 1998 Act. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127007389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, Supreme Court R(关于Evans的申请)和另一个v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21，最高法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0037
T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, Supreme Court. This case concerns whether Parliament can have intended for a statutory provision to allow a member of the executive to overturn the decision of a court without good, clearly articulated reasons (Lord Mance), or contrary to constitutional principle (Lord Neuberger). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126125110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) R(关于拘留行动的适用)诉一级法庭(移民和庇护分庭)[2015]EWCA民事案件840，上诉法院(民事分庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0036
T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case considers the legality of the ‘Fast Track Rules’ which operated in asylum application cases, and the extent to which the courts can intervene in, and suspend, processes in major areas of government policy. There is also discussion of the relative roles of the courts and government in contentious areas of public policy. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133171445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) R诉环境国务大臣，Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 qb504，高等法院(皇后审判庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0029
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The case concerned whether an interest group formed to protect a recently rediscovered Elizabethan theatre had sufficient interest to bring a judicial review against a decision not to protect the theatre. The case is considered with the Fleet Street Casuals case [1982] AC 617 and Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548 in mind. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131457862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court R(关于Cart的应用)诉高级法庭[2011]UKSC 28，最高法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0033
T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court. This case examined the circumstances under which the Upper Tribunal would be subject to judicial review. There is also some discussion of ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"2674 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127214409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539, House of Lords R诉内政部秘书，单独Pierson [1998] AC 539，上议院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0028
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539, House of Lords. This case explored whether a decision-maker acting in a quasi-judicial capacity was bound by the same decision-making standards as the courts including, for example, whether retrospective decision-making was permitted. As well as these rule of law considerations, it also raises questions as regards the division or separation of functions within the constitution. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133759716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench 关于Dr Bonham案(1608)8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, King 's Bench;Dr Bonham案(1609)8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King 's Bench
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0041
T. Webb
{"title":"Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench. This case concerns questions of bias and, more importantly, the attempt by Coke to establish a common law power to overturn Acts of Parliament. The case predates the constitutional settlement which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but echoes of the principles discussed in this case can also be found in modern case law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117293948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, Supreme Court 安盛保险有限公司诉Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46，最高法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0005
T. Webb
{"title":"AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, Supreme Court. This case addressed the extent to which Acts of the Scottish Parliament (ASPs) were reviewable by the courts, the special status of ASPs, and regularized the rules on standing as between English and Scots law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"17 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121014802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) R诉污染督察，绿色和平有限公司(第2号)[1994]2 CMLR 548，高等法院(皇后审判庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0025
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123627758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：604180095
Book学术官方微信