Search for: "State v. Elias" Results 221 - 240 of 258
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Dec 2010, 9:21 am by immigrationprof
Jessica Slavin has written "Most Important United States Supreme Court Case in Refugee Law: I.N.S. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 9:59 pm by Adam Wagner
RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1285 (18 November 2010) – Read judgment The Court of Appeal has ruled that asylum seekers cannot be forced to lie about not holding political beliefs when returning to their home country. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:48 pm by selias
Steve Elias – Team Leader, Business License Research Team, Corporation Service Company. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 10:45 pm by Angus McCullough QC
Gay rights and asylum HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 - read our post The SC held that the government? [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:34 am by Kent Scheidegger
The case is California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 10:54 am by selias
Steve Elias, Team Leader-Business License Research Team, Corporation Service Company [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 2:18 pm by selias
Steve Elias, Team Leader-Business License Research Team, Corporation Service Company [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 11:00 pm by Matt Donmall
In the recent Court of Appeal case of TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916, Elias LJ considered such an argument in the context of three Zimbabweans who were claiming asylum because of a risk of persecution on the basis of their political opinions were they to be returned. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 5:00 am by Isabel McArdle
v)              Is the Secretary of State entitled to rely on the defence of act of state? [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 1:05 pm by NL
Elias v Spencer [2010] EWCA Civ 246 [Not on Bailii yet] This was a permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal hearing. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 9:08 am by Matt Sundquist
  The decision requires twenty-four states to repeal their bans on corporate and union advertising; as states repeal these laws, Baran reasoned, they might concurrently strengthen their reporting and disclosure laws. [read post]