Search for: "Williamson v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 973
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2024, 12:20 am by Frank Cranmer
Significantly, Linden J refers to R (Williamson) v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL15 and R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 as the two leading Article 9 cases in this jurisdiction. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 2:05 am by Frank Cranmer
The judgment In R (Williamson) v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL 15, Lord Nicholls had drawn a distinction at [16] between the two elements of Article 9: there was “a difference between freedom to hold a belief and freedom to express or ‘manifest’ a belief. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 4:20 am by Dennis Crouch
Certainly, more clarity from the USPTO on how to navigate the BRI standard alongside cases such as Williamson v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 12:46 pm by admin
  State court analogues to these rules replicated the debate in state courts around the country. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
” This is precisely what the Supreme Court called for in TSC Industries v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 3:39 pm by Steven Calabresi
 The Supreme Court doubled-down on its support for the unlimited regulation of occupational freedom in Williamson v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 5:07 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
State of California (5th—F084367) Residential Employees Performing In-Home Supportive Services—Employment Relationship with State of California—Vicarious Liability—Court of Appeal, affirming trial court’s dismissal order, held that State of California (State) had no employment relationship (either as joint or special employer) with In-Home Supportive… Digests of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review Innovative Work Comp… [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, former counsel established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter [*2]of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that their actions did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s alleged damages, and that subsequent counsel had a sufficient opportunity to protect the plaintiff’s rights (see Parklex Assoc. v Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, 118 AD3d 968, 970; Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641). [read post]