Search for: "BE v. State"
Results 2241 - 2260
of 258,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2009, 3:03 am
Regina (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 23; [2009] WLR (D) 148 “The irrebuttable presumption, laid down in paras 2 and 3 of Pt 1 of Sch 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, that a foreign national who entered the United Kingdom via Greece could [...] [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 10:44 am
He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under State v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 2:13 am
Regina (MJ (Angola)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 557; [2010] WLR (D) 132 “The Secretary of State’s apparently untrammelled discretion contained in s 42(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to discharge a patient detained in hospital under ss 37 and 41 of the Act in order to facilitate his or her deportation on the grounds that he had committed criminal offences was to be exercised rationally and in such a way as would not breach the… [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:22 pm
The State moved to dismiss all charges. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 11:43 am
In United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 12:59 pm
My friend Chris Guzelian thinks that I have jumped the shark in joining with Professors Makuch and Lash in filing an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 8:50 pm
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT CONVICTION EXPUNGED – State v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 3:12 pm
Sandoz (No. 15-1195) appeals to express the views of the United States. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 3:49 am
Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269; [2011] WLR (D) 95 “Where a party sought permission to appeal from a judge and permission was granted on terms, that party had no right to appeal against those terms by reason of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, unless the party concerned was not present at the permission hearing at which the terms were imposed. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 3:08 am
Regina (Oakes) v Secretary of State for Justice and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1169; [2010] WLR(D) 267 “The different wording of the tests to be applied when considering the suitability for automatic release of a prisoner who had been recalled to prison for breaching the terms of his licence, under ss 255A(5) and 255C(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as inserted by section 29(2) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) was deliberate. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 3:33 am
Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2010] EWHC 143 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 38 “Where the construction of an house without planning permission had been concealed by the erection of straw bales and a tarpaulin which had been left in place for over four years after the completion of the house, so that the local planning authority did not become aware of the house until after expiry of that four-year period, the totality of building… [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 3:37 am
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15; [2010] WLR (D) 79 “An asylum seeker was excluded from protection under the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171), pursuant to art 1F(a), if there were serious reasons for considering him voluntarily to have contributed in a significant way to an organisation’s ability to pursue the purpose of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity, whilst… [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 11:58 am
State v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 8:00 am
”) State v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:50 pm
See Hudson v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 3:01 pm
So far, Berry v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 10:53 am
For those South Florida criminal defense attorneys who like to follow the oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court, I thought I’d let you know that oral argument occurred in the Supreme Court case of United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 6:59 am
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Moore v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 6:20 pm
Under United States v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 12:01 pm
After reading such statement several times, I realized that this premise is really the crux of the issue in State v. [read post]
