O'Brien v Keogh
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1972 |
| Date | 28 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | [1968. No. 215 P.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
O'Brien
and
Keogh
(S.C.)
Disability -Infant - Infant in custody of parent having lesser period in which to sue than infant not in such custody - Equality before the law - Personal rights - Right of action - Property rights -Statute of Limitations, 1957 (No. 6), s. 49, sub-s.2(a)(ii) - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article40, ss. 1 and 3.
In regard to actions for damages for negligence where the damages claimed include damages for personal injuries, it is enacted by s. 11, sub-s. 2(b), of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, that (subject to s. 49) an action shall not be brought after three years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sub-paragraph (i) of sub-s. 2(a) of s. 49 enacts that where a person is under a disability (including infancy) on the date when such right of action accrued to him then, subject to sub-paragraph (ii), the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock 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
83 cases
-
Tuohy v Courtney
...HEGARTY V O'LOUGHRAN 1990 1 IR 148 MORGAN V PARK DEVELOPMENTS LTD 1983 ILRM 156 O'DOMHNAILL V MERRICK 1984 IR 151 O'BRIEN V KEOGH 1972 IR 144 O'BRIEN V MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING CO LTD 1973 IR 334 MOYNIHAN V GREENSMITH 1977 IR 55 FOLEY V IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1952 IR 118, 1957 86 ILTR......
-
Campbell v Ward
... ... 5By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O'Brien .v. Keogh ( 1972 I.R. 44) section 49(2) (a) (ii) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 was held to be unconstitutional ... 6In the case of Moynihan .v ... ...
-
J. & J. HAIRE & COMPANY Ltd v MINISTER for HEALTH
...General [1986] I.L.R.M. 136. Moynihan v. Greensmyth [1977] I.R. 55. Murphy v. The Attorney General [1982] I.R. 241. O'Brien v. Keogh [1972] I.R. 144. O'Brien v. Manufacturing Engineering Co. Ltd. [1973] I.R. 334. Pigs Marketing Board v. Donnelly (Dublin), Ltd.[1939] I.R. 413. The Planning a......
-
Gavrylyuk & Bensaada v Min for Justice
...ILRM 50 BODE v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP SUPREME 20.12.2007 2007/6/1033 NICOLAU, STATE v BORD UCHTÁLA 1966 IR 567 O'BRIEN v KEOGH & O'BRIEN 1972 IR 144 DE B ÚRCA & ANDERSON v AG 1976 IR 38 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 3 REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5(1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE (UNITED NATIONS CONVE......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Indexes
.... . . . . . . 15Nicholas vThe Queen (1998)CLR 173 . . . . . . . 247Nolan vMcLeod 1987 SCCR558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16O’Brien vKeogh [1972] IR144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94O’Leary vAttorney-General [1993] 1IR 102. . . 53,342Ohio vRoberts, 448 US56 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 257P......
-
The Prosecution of Organised Crime: Removing the Jury
...57; Glanville Williams,The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial (Stevens & Sons: London, 1955). 80 O’Brien v Keogh [1972] IR 144.81 Dillane v Ireland [1980] ILRM 167. 94 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF THE PROSECUTION OF ORGANISED CRIME The matter of equality ......
-
Ireland's divorce bill: traditional Irish and international norms of equality and bodily integrity at issue in a domestic abuse context.
...was to "redress the inequalities imposed by circumstances on orphans and illegitimate children." Id. at 642. (35.) O'Brien v. Keogh [1972] I.R. 144, 154 (Ir. S.C. 1972), available in LEXIS, Intlaw Library, IRECAS (36.) Id. at 154-56. Again, as in the Nicolaou case, the O'Brien court found t......