{"title":"最高法院的宪法改革","authors":"G. Watt","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2020.1888515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. On 28 August 2019, the Queen in Council made an Order proroguing Parliament from, at the earliest, 9 September until 14 October. Concerned that the prorogation was devised to prevent any attempt in Parliament to amend the date on which the UK would leave the EU, two distinct groups of litigants commenced proceedings in Edinburgh and London to have the prorogation overturned. The Court of Session ultimately found for the petitioners, but a three-judge Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division in London could not be persuaded to make the sought-after order.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutional Innovation in the Supreme Court\",\"authors\":\"G. Watt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10854681.2020.1888515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"1. On 28 August 2019, the Queen in Council made an Order proroguing Parliament from, at the earliest, 9 September until 14 October. Concerned that the prorogation was devised to prevent any attempt in Parliament to amend the date on which the UK would leave the EU, two distinct groups of litigants commenced proceedings in Edinburgh and London to have the prorogation overturned. The Court of Session ultimately found for the petitioners, but a three-judge Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division in London could not be persuaded to make the sought-after order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judicial Review\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Judicial Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1888515\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1888515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
1. On 28 August 2019, the Queen in Council made an Order proroguing Parliament from, at the earliest, 9 September until 14 October. Concerned that the prorogation was devised to prevent any attempt in Parliament to amend the date on which the UK would leave the EU, two distinct groups of litigants commenced proceedings in Edinburgh and London to have the prorogation overturned. The Court of Session ultimately found for the petitioners, but a three-judge Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division in London could not be persuaded to make the sought-after order.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
