113,241 research outputs found
George Monaghan
No full textMarietta High School students; studio portrait. George Monaghan (Orian, v. 16, 1934, p. 51)
Abraham Lincoln\u27s ancestry : an address delivered before the Sixth Annual Indiana History Conference in Indianapolis, Friday evening, December 5, 1924
No full textThis is an article in Indiana History Bulletin, January, 1925, v. 2, no. 4. and includes bibliographical references. Per Monaghan, this is An investigation of Lincoln\u27s ancestors in England, New England, and Kentucky. The work also treats Lincoln\u27s maternal line and Lincoln\u27s lost grandmother. The exterior cover includes a yellow box with the title and author within it. The interior cover includes an illustration of Indiana in 1816 below the Indiana History Bulletin title and issue.https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/fvw-pamphlets/2110/thumbnail.jp
An Imperfect Legacy: The Significance of the Bancoult Litigation on the Development of Domestic Constitutional Jurisprudence
No full textThis essay will explore the constitutional significance of the decisions in R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office (No. 1) 2001 Q.B. 1067, R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) 2008 UKHL 61, R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) 2016 UKSC 35 and R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) 2014 EWCA Civ 708. The imperfect legacy of the Bancoult litigation deserves a special place within the constitutional jurisprudence of the United Kingdom. At the very core of the decisions in Bancoult (No. 1) and Bancoult (No. 2) was the relationship between the common law and the prerogative, a relationship which, as this essay will argue, ought to have imposed limitations upon the Crown. It will be argued that the decision of the House of Lords in Bancoult (No. 2) demonstrates how a failure of the common law's role to `admeasure' the prerogative amounts to `bad law', especially where, as was in the case of colonial legislation in Bancoult (No. 2), there is arguably ineffective parliamentary oversight. Furthermore, the Bancoult litigation raises issues of the normative purpose of accountability of the prerogative and the competing interests of constitutionalism, national interest and public opinion. In terms as to whether the decision to remove the right of abode could be reviewed by the courts, the national interest of the United Kingdom was an important consideration. The Bancoult litigation highlights the uneasy legacy of colonialism, namely, the treatment of British colonial subjects, the attempts to deny or fetter the rights of these subjects to return home or to engage in economic enterprise, and the limitations on seeking redress before the domestic courts and at the European Court of Human Rights (see Bancoult (No. 2), Bancoult (No. 3) and Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (2013) 56 E.H.R.R. SE15)
Restricting the Meaning of ‘Appropriation’ under the Theft Act 1968 – A Cool, Calm and Rational Approach to the Issue of ‘Stealing’ A Perfectly Valid Gift
No full textLord Hobhouse’s dissent in R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53
This is Chapter 15 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
Protecting the secret deliberations of the jury in the interests of efficiency – has the law “lost its moral underpinning”?
No full textLord Steyn's dissent in R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock (2004) UKHL 2, (2004) 1 AC 1118
This is Chapter 17 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
Show me the Precedent! – Prerogative Powers and the Protection of the Fundamental Right not to be Exiled
No full textLord Mance’s dissent in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (No2) [2008] UKHL 61
This is Chapter 13 in Part IV – Public La
Restricting compensation for miscarriages of justice to the truly innocent
No full textLord Judge's and Lord Brown's dissent in R (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice; Re MacDermott ; Re McCartney (2011) UKSC 18
This is Chapter 18 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
A Defence of Commercial Certainty in the Wake of Judicial Pragmatism
No full textLord Bingham’s dissent in Golden Straight Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12
This is Chapter 6 in Part II – Company and Commercial La
Dissenting Judgments in the Law
No full textIn Dissenting Judgments in the Law a team of expert contributors reassess nineteen landmark cases from different areas of the law, each of which had the potential for the law to have developed in a markedly different direction.
The cases have been selected on account of their continued relevance to the law today or the controversial nature of the majority’s decision. A key feature of each case was a dissenting opinion from a judge who thought that the law should develop in a different direction.
The aim of the contributors is to re-evaluate important cases, such as:-
YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27,
Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446
and R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53
by assessing the merits of the judgements given, before deciding whether the law would, in fact, have been better served by following the dissenting opinion rather than that of the majority of judges in the case.
The judicial reasoning in each case is explored in depth and is contrasted with differing approaches in other jurisdictions. Where relevant, a comparative analysis is employed in order to show how the law, by not following the dissenting opinion, has developed out of step with other common law jurisdictions.
Each contributor then sets out what impact the dissenting judgment might have had on the law if it had decided the case and assess where the law in that particular field would be today
Antisuit Injunctions and Preclusion against Absent Nonresident Class Members
No full textIn this Article, Professor Monaghan addresses an issue of pressing concern in class action litigation today, namely, the extent to which a trial court\u27s class judgment can bind – either by preclusion or injunction – unnamed nonresident class members, thus preventing them from raising due process challenges to the judgment in another court. After placing the antisuit injunction and preclusion issues in the context of recent class action and related developments, Professor Monaghan discusses the Supreme Court\u27s 1985 decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts and its applicability to these issues. In particular, Professor Monaghan criticizes reading Shutts\u27 implied consent rationale as turning entirely on class members\u27failure to opt out of the class action, and using that failure as a basis for an antisuit injunction against nonresident class members. Absent minimum contact, Shutts requires, inter alia, adequate representation at all times in order to establish in personam jurisdiction over nonresident class members. That issue can always be raised in another forum. In a class action universe that includes races to judgment and reverse auctions, this rule is desirable. In the absence of a legislative reform, Professor Monaghan concludes that non-party, nonresident class members must remain free to challenge, on due process grounds, otherwise preclusive judgments in a forum of their choosing
- …
