Search for: "State v. Hooper" Results 1 - 20 of 161
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2007, 2:15 am
Fact sheet not unambiguous Hooper v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Court of Appeal “A government fact sheet was not clear and unambiguous enough so that overpayments of incapacity benefit were not recoverable from a person receiving the benefit who took up part-time paid employment without notifying the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in breach of statute. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 9:01 am by Amy Howe
The state dismissed Hooper’s contention as “totally baseless. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
 Secondly, it claims, in effect, that the Master of the Rolls’ private researches demonstrates the law, as stated in the leading text book, to be not only wrong but unarguable. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 2:41 pm by paperstreet
In a groundbreaking case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Hooper v. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 11:50 am
The Idaho Supreme Court recently issued a decision, State v. [read post]
Up until this case, that position had support in domestic law (see AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 4 All ER 1127; R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487; and R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 4 All ER 193). [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 12:11 pm by Unknown
(Defamation; Nuisance: Counterclaims) United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 8:59 pm
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry (Hooper v. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 12:27 pm by NARF
Frey (Maine Indian Settlement Acts; Reservation Boundaries) United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 3:01 am
Watts; State, Dep't of Corrections v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 3:01 am
Watts; State, Dep't of Corrections v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 1:04 pm by Vishnu Kannan
Vishnu Kannan shared the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s unredacted opinion in Doe v. [read post]