Mann V United - Law Dictionary Search Results
Public interest
he belongs. No stigmas or implication of misbehaviour is intended, and punishment is not the objective, Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1894: (1980) 4 SCC 266. Public interest, takes within
Notice to quit
a recognition subsequent to that date of the authority will not make the notice good, see Doe d. Mann v. Walters, (1830) 10 B&C 625. And a notice to quit by an agent of an agent is not
Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori 'quiparatur
a previous request, provided that the interests of third parties have not been affected in the interim.) See Mann v. Walters, (1830) 10 B&C 626, and Broom's Leg. Max., and RATIFICATION.
Keep your definitions linked to case research
prior restraint
by publication) before the expression actually takes place see also Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States in the Important Cases section compare censorship, freedom of speech NOTE: In New York Times Co. v.
Judgment
to allow the amendment, a judgment in terms of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Prasant Chandra Sen v. United Commercial Bank, AIR 1982 Cal 555. An end to the suit or proceeding, the adjudication is indisputably a … The suit is still pending. The order passed by court cannot be consider as judgment, Madhoban Das v. Mannoo Mal, AIR 1956 All 672. A 'judgment' means the expression of the opinion of the court arrived at
Salary or wages
payment, or promise of payment of a price; and (4) the passing of the title, State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 252: (1953) SCR 1059: (1953) SCJ 373: (1953) SCA 408: 55 BLJR … or any consideration, (g) supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of (h) supply of goods being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink
McNabb-Mallory rule
McNabb-Mallory rule [after McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), U.S. Supreme Court cases
McNabb-Mallory rule
the broader protections afforded under the Mioranda rule, the McNabb-Mallory rule is rarely applied in modern cases, McNabb v. United States, 318 US 332, 63 S.Ct. 608 (1943); Mallory v. United States, 354 US 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356
Solicitor
1934 (24 & 25 Geo. 5, c. 45), passed as a result of the decision in Law Society v. United Services Bureau, (1934) 1 KB 343, which decided that 'person' in the 1932 Act meant natural person, so … Brown v. Tibbetts, 11 CBNS 855) his bill of costs until one month after its delivery in the manner prescribed by s. 65. He has a general lien for his costs on the papers of his clients
Volenti non fit injuria
& Son, (1935) 1 KB 146; contra if the risk was undertaken voluntarily and not under duty, Cutler v. United Dairies (London) Ltd., (1933) 2 KB 297; and see Rescue and Voluntary Assumption of Risk, by Professor Goodhart,
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free