Search for: "YOUNGS v. CASE" Results 181 - 200 of 9,252
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2011, 4:26 pm by Lyle Denniston
   A report on the case of Fisher v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 7:51 pm by laborprof lpb
The Knox case was argued today at the Supreme Court, and you can get the transcript here. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 2:23 am by sally
Regina (B) v Islington London Borough Council [2010] WLR (D) 236 “The Education Act 1996 placed no obligation on a local authority to maintain a statement of special educational needs for a young person over the age of 19 or to fund him or her to continue in secondary education. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 1:43 pm
It is better that I eat crow now, while it is young and tender. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am by Kirsten Sjvoll, Matrix Chambers
Comment This case is significant for two reasons: First, it tasks the Supreme Court with answering the question raised obiter by Lady Hale in Savage v South Essex NHS Trust [2009] 1 AC 653, namely “what is the extent of the state’s duty to protect all people against an immediate risk of self-harm? [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:29 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Kathryne Young Outing Batson: How the Case of Gay Jurors Reveals the Shortcomings of Modern Voir Dire  Abstract:       Although scholarly attention has been devoted to the argument that Batson v. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 2:06 am by Charlotte Bamford, Olswang LLP
Background The appellant, Mr Hunt, is a young adult with ADHD and other learning difficulties and behavioural problems. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 10:15 am by WCK Director
Emotional Tension Claim Following 9/11 Attack – Not Compensable   In the Matter of Young v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Aitken v DPP ([2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin)) the Divisional Court dismissed a former editor’s appeal against a conviction for publishing a story which breached an anonymity order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:03 am
Regina( C) v Secretary of State for Justice; [2008] WLR (D) 262 “The introduction of an amendment to the Secure Training Centre Rules to permit physical restraint of young offenders in secure training centres to ensure good order and discipline without prior consultation with the Children's Commissioner was unlawful and engaged art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. [read post]