Example sentences of "[verb] [noun prp] v. " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Both Lord Coleridge C.J. and Smith J. relied on Morgan v. Palmer ; Smith J. also invoked Steele v. Williams , 8 Ex. 625 , without however referring to the judgment of Martin B. Neither referred to the power of immediate distress . |
| 2 | The appeal court took the view that a speaker must take the audience as he or she finds it — this contradicted Beatty v. Gillbanks and revived all the fears about ‘ mob rule ’ which had been to the forefront of the judges ' minds in that case . |
| 3 | He then distinguished Bainbrigge v. Browne , 18 Ch.D. 188 on the ground of ‘ the case not being one where there was a necessary presumption that … influence existed . ’ |
| 4 | On these and other grounds the judge distinguished Bromley v. GLC . |
| 5 | [ His Lordship then distinguished Foakes v. Beer as applying between debtor and creditor . ] |
| 6 | The reference to ‘ true consent ’ ( Reg. v. Lawrence , at p. 377c ) calls for a further observation which will also be apt when I consider Dobson v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc . |
| 7 | As Mr. Glick showed Campbell v. Hall , 1 Cowp. 204 which appears to be favourable to Woolwich was really concerned with constitutional issues rather than with the present question . |
| 8 | It was argued on his behalf that the payment was not voluntary , citing Morgan v. Palmer , 2 B. & C. 729 ( a case of compulsion ) . |
| 9 | Distinguishing Rex v. Clarke , 22 Cr.App.R. 58 and Reg. v. Hall , 43 Cr.App.R. 29 , Shelley J.A. , delivering the judgment of the court , observed that the defence is entitled to see such a statement , not by virtue of any general rule of law , but by virtue of the prosecution 's duty to inform the defence of statements in their possession made by a witness whose evidence at the trial differs substantially from what has been said in the statements . |
| 10 | Lord Lane C.J. , delivering the judgment of the court , after considering Reg v. Lawrence and Reg. v. Morris , said , at p. 1338 : |
| 11 | Somafer S.A. v. Saar-Ferngas A.G. ( Case 33/78 ) [ 1978 ] E.C.R. 2183 , E.C.J. |
| 12 | This team was largely drawn from the former municipal tramways and included G. V. Stanley and L. Marriott from Croydon Corporation . |
| 13 | In April 1866 an emotionally unstable radical student named D. V. Karakozov made an attempt on the Tsar ‘ s life . |
| 14 | turned to consider Yerkey v. Jones , 63 C.L.R. 649 and the submission made by Mr. Hamer , counsel for the wife . |
| 15 | In my view , under this rule the court retains sufficient flexibility to enable it , when justice so requires , to admit further evidence on the application of a person found guilty of contempt of court even when the well known Ladd v. Marshall [ 1954 ] 1 W.L.R. 1489 criteria are not satisfied . |
| 16 | However , it is not easy to reconcile Chapman v. Honig with Acrow ( Automation ) Ltd . |
| 17 | [ His Lordship discussed Ward v. Byham ( above , p. 224 ) and Williams v. Williams ( above , p.218 ) , and pointed out that the other judges in those cases found that there was ample consideration . ] |
| 18 | What did Corbett v. |
| 19 | Or , if the court follows Smith v. Jones , then A will be liable , but if it follows Robinson v. Edwards , which is to be preferred for reasons previously given , then A will not be liable . |
| 20 | LORD ELLENBOROUGH : I think Harris v. Watson was rightly decided ; but I doubt whether the ground of public policy , upon which Lord Kenyon is stated to have proceeded , be the true principle on which the decision is to be supported . |
| 21 | Or , if the court follows Smith v. Jones , then A will be liable , but if it follows Robinson v. Edwards , which is to be preferred for reasons previously given , then A will not be liable . |
| 22 | But neither had Howes v. Bishop [ 1909 ] 2 K.B . |
| 23 | Before leaving Butterworth v. Kingsway Motors it should be noted that if the same facts ( i.e. involving a motor vehicle ) were to occur again today , the result would be different because of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 , Part III ( see paragraph 5–40 above ) . |
| 24 | Lord Atkinson in the House of Lords , at p. 235 , also discusses Baynton v. Morgan , 22 Q.B.D. 74 , but not in a way which assists in the present case . |
| 25 | Does B. v. Islington Health Authority [ 1991 ] 1 Q.B . |
| 26 | Cheshire , Fifoot and Furmston ( 12th ed. ) pp. 107–108 ( Discussing Shadwell v. Shadwell , above , p. 225 , and Scotson v. Pegg ) |
| 27 | In practice processions appear to have a favoured place providing there is no actual obstruction , that they are peaceful and that police directions are observed ( see Hirst v. Chief Constable of West Yorks ( C.A. , 1986 ) ) . |
| 28 | See Stewart v. Dunphy , 1980 S.L.T. ( Notes ) 93 in which it was decided such persons were guilty of an offence . |
| 29 | But , as I have indicated , much of the reasoning in the judgments following Hobbs v. Clark [ 1988 ] R.T.R. 36 and , in particular the summary of the law given by Bingham L.J . |
| 30 | See Mountford v. Scott , above , P.79 , Centrovincial Estates plc v. Merchant Investors , above , p. 115 , Thomas v. Thomas above , p. 198 . |