Attorney General v O'Kelly
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court (Irish Free State) |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1928 |
| Date | 20 March 1928 |
H. C.,
Attorney-General
and
O'Kelly
Comments on observations made by Judge on the conduct of jury - Scandalising the Court - Motion to attach -Jurisdiction of High Court - Powers conferred by the Constitution - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I., Arts. 2, 64, 72, 73 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), s. 17.
The High Court of Justice of the Irish Free State has jurisdiction to commit for contempt of Court, neither Art. 72 nor any...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
19 cases
-
Murphy v British Broadcasting Corporation
...STATE V MCRANN 1977 IR 78 DOBSON V HASTINGS 1992 ALL ER 394 CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LEICESTERSHIRE V GARAVELLI 1997 EMLR 543 AG V O'KELLY 1928 IR 308 CONSTITUTION ART 38.1 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3 DPP, STATE V WALSH 1981 IR 412 CONSTITUTION ART 35.2 SHANNON REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD V CAVAN CO CO......
-
State (Commins) v McRann
...the issue of contempt of court and to impose sanctions in the event of disobedience to their orders. The Attorney General v. O'KellyIR [1928] I.R. 308: In re EarleIR [1938] I.R. 485 and The Attorney Generalv. ConnollyIR [1947] I.R. 213 approved. 2. That in the case of civil contempt the rea......
-
Health and Service Executive v L.N.
...COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL 1998 3 IR 399 1998/18/6670 S (PS) v S (JA) (ORSE C) UNREP BUDD 22.5.1995 1998/10/2967 AG v O'KELLY 1928 IR 308 AG v CONNOLLY 1947 IR 213 1947 81 ILTR 92 R v DOLAN & ORS 1907 2 IR 260 KELLY v O'NEILL & BRADY 2000 1 IR 354 2000 1 ILRM 507 2000/11/4219 PI......
-
State (DPP) v Walsh
...this report:— 1 The State (H) v. Daly [1977] I.R. 90. 2 The State (Commins) v. McRann [1977] I.R. 78. 3 The Attorney General v. O'Kelly [1928] I.R. 308. 4 The Attorney General v. Connolly [1947] I.R. 213. 5 In re Earle [1938] I.R. 485. 6 R. v. Almon (1765) Wilmot 243. 7 Melling v. Ó Mathgha......
Get Started for Free
