Search for: "V D" Results 2461 - 2480 of 76,325
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2022, 1:40 pm by Josh Blackman
And Justice Alito would have DIG'd Minerva Surgical v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:28 pm
Gorsuch)Cette décision complète l'affaire Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 4:12 am by sally
Konsumentombudsmannen v Ving Sverige AB (Case C-122/10); [2011] WLR (D) 181 “A commercial communication constituted an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of article 2(i) of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, as soon as the information on the product and its price were sufficient for the consumer to be able to make a transactional decision. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 2:12 am by sally
Preddy and another v Bull and another [2012] EWCA Civ 83; [2012] WLR (D) 30 “By operating a policy of restricting occupancy of double-bedded rooms in their hotel to married couples, the defendants had discriminated directly against the claimant, a homosexual couple. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 2:34 am by sally
Basey and others v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 115; [2012] WLR (D) 34 “Since the social security and housing legislation had not defined what ‘sheltered accommodation’ was, it was not legitimate for a housing authority to claim that a sheltered accommodation should have a warden or resident caretaking manager and emergency alarm to qualify as such to impose an obligation on the housing authority to pay the costs of fuel and cleaning of the rooms and… [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:17 am by tracey
Regina (Aguilar Quila and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AIRE Centre and others intervening) Regina (Bibi and another) v Same (Same intervening) [2011] UKSC 45; [2011] WLR (D) 291 “An immigration rule designed to deter forced marriages, which prevented the granting of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse if either of the parties to the marriage was aged under 21, was an unjustified interference with the right to family… [read post]