https://www.patreon.com/audilex An educational podcast aimed to provide you with narrations useful for your legal studies. The podcast is aimed at those studying the laws of England and Wales. It will contain narrations of cases, laws and international conventions.
A narration of the Facebook advertising policy.
EC Guidelines For Trustworthy AI Introduction Part 1 by Timur Boltaev
EC Guidelines For Trustworthy AI Executive Summary by Timur Boltaev
An overview of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019
Unwired v Huawei: The ETSI IPR Policy by Timur Boltaev
Unwired v Huawei - Standard Setting Organisations by Timur Boltaev
Case Summary: Unwired v. Huawei by Timur Boltaev
Unwired Planet International v Huawei: Patents A Legal Background by Timur Boltaev
Allegations that a bribe was paid to procure a contract are by no means unknown in international business disputes heard by the Commercial Court in London. Allegations that evidence was procured by torture are thankfully rare. In this case allegations of both bribery and torture were made. A claim under a guarantee of a contract to charter a vessel was met with a defence that the contract was procured by bribery, with the consequence that the guarantee was therefore unenforceable. The allegation of bribery was founded on evidence of confessions made by the individuals who had allegedly paid and received the bribe. The claimant in turn alleged that the confessions were obtained by torture and for that reason were inadmissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
On law as a choice, practicing with the major US firm, creating for an international clientele and characteristics of a future lawyer.
Обзор Судебной Практики По Вопросам, Связанным С Применением 223 ФЗ by Timur Boltaev
United States v. Schooner Amistad, (1841), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of Africans on board the Spanish schooner La Amistad in 1839. It was an unusual freedom suit that involved international issues and parties, as well as United States law. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison described it in 1969 as the most important court case involving slavery before being eclipsed by that of Dred Scott in 1857.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,(1831), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Justice Marshall.
Defendant Palko is tried and convicted of murder for a second time after state appeals previous murder conviction on same events. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The double jeopardy prohibition provision included in the Fifth Amendment is not applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
A decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court's 7-2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
A case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935, which established a federal taxing structure that was designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and payment of unemployment compensation. The decision signaled the Court's acceptance of a broad interpretation of Congressional power to influence state laws.
A United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress’ power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing.
A United States Supreme Court case which held that a state may not regulate intrastate prices by prohibiting the importation of less expensive goods in interstate commerce. It established the principle that one state, in its dealings with another, cannot place itself in economic isolation.
A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819, was a landmark decision in United States corporate law from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which pre-dated the creation of the State. The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system.
Rhode Island v. Innis, is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. Under Miranda v. Arizona, police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. In Innis, the court held that interrogation is not just direct questioning but also its "functional equivalent"; namely, "any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response."
Harris (defendant) was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover police officer. At trial, Harris testified. During cross examination, the prosecution attempted to impeach Harris’ earlier testimony by asking questions about unwarned statements Harris made following arrest. The jury was instructed that the statements could only be used to assess Harris’ credibility. The statements were not used during the prosecution’s case in chief. Both attorneys discussed the statements during closing arguments. Harris was found guilty. In a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Договоры и односторонние сделки // Сделки, представительство, исковая давность by Timur Boltaev
Понятие сделки // Сделки, представительство, исковая давность by Timur Boltaev
Предисловие от ответственного редактора // Сделки, представительство, исковая давность by Timur Boltaev
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen by Timur Boltaev
Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council by Timur Boltaev
Об обществах с ограниченной ответственностью by Timur Boltaev
A company's member's legal status - U.K. Company's Act 2006 - part 8 by Timur Boltaev
OFAC FAQs Other Sanctions Programs by Timur Boltaev
Marrakesh Declaration Of 15 April 1994 // WTO by Timur Boltaev
The DAO // report of investigation by the SEC by Timur Boltaev
RFC 2012 Plc Appellant V Advocate General For Scotland Respondent by Timur Boltaev
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
