Search for: "Patel v. Patel"
Results 1 - 20
of 784
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2021, 5:21 pm
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Patel v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
Insider dealing is an offence under Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and Mr Patel’s claimed agreement with Mr Mirza fell within its prohibitions. [read post]
19 May 2022, 9:14 am
Patel v. [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 4:34 pm
Lamparello, Adam, City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 5:52 am
The case Patel v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 6:00 am
Patel v. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 5:42 am
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia has more insight on the oral argument in Patel v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 2:51 am
Regina v Patel; Regina v Hussain [2009] EWCA Crim 2311; [2009] WLR (D) 327 "The Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc) Regulations 1994 were not to be construed as prohibiting transactions which were not intended to have the effect, nor had the effect, of releasing a medical product into a distribution scheme which would lead [...] [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 9:15 pm
In Los Angeles v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 2:26 am
Regina (Patel) v Lord Chancellor [2010] EWHC 2220 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 240 “An applicant for exceptional funding by way of legal aid had to meet a high threshold to satisfy the test of ‘significant wider public interest’ in para 27.2.8 of the Legal Services Commission’s Funding Code Decision Making Guidance, subject to the latitude (or margin of discretion) accorded to the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of his judgment. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 1:53 am
Regina v Patel; Regina v Hussain Court of Appeal "Where medicinal products were intended for sale to end users outside the European Community, the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 2:30 am
For judgment, please download: [2013] UKSC 72 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: Patel & Ors v SSHD, Anwar v SSHD, and Alam v SSHD [2013] UKSC 72 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 2:30 am
For judgment, please download: [2013] UKSC 72 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: Patel & Ors v SSHD, Anwar v SSHD, and Alam v SSHD [2013] UKSC 72 appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
28 Feb 2009, 8:05 pm
Patel v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 3:55 am
Patel and Another v Keles and Another Court of Appeal "Where a landlord opposed an application for renewal of a business tenancy but it was shown that were he to regain the lease he was highly likely to sell, he did not have the requisite intention to occupy the premises for the purpose of carrying on his [...] [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 1:58 am
Patel and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 741; [2012] WLR (D) 174 “The decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse an extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom was not invalidated by the fact that she had made no removal direction in respect of the applicant at the same time as or shortly after the refusal of the extension application.” WLR Daily, 1st June 2012 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 1:58 am
Patel and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 741; [2012] WLR (D) 174 “The decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse an extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom was not invalidated by the fact that she had made no removal direction in respect of the applicant at the same time as or shortly after the refusal of the extension application.” WLR Daily, 1st June 2012 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 7:56 am
The following is from Sunita Patel, immprof extraordinaire from American University Washington College of Law: At 4:00 a.m. two days before President Obama left office, almost 25 students met in front of the U.S. [read post]
10 Sep 2021, 3:11 am
Supreme Court in Patel v. [read post]
