Search for: "High v State"
Results 2541 - 2560
of 35,513
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2020, 5:00 am
First, in Silverstrand Investments v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 2:14 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) MD (Gambia), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 121 (17 February 2011) Test Claimants In the Thin Cap Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 127 (18 February 2011) Axa Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 133 (18 February 2011) Welford v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 129 (18 February 2011) Bayat Telephone… [read post]
11 May 2021, 9:04 pm
The states said there are constitutional questions that cry out for an answer from the high court. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm
Last week, in Cruz v. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 6:34 pm
But in Prowel v. [read post]
8 Jan 2017, 1:26 pm
” (United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 10:43 am
Bel Canto Design, Ltd. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 5:22 am
In R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64, an appeal concerning other aspects of the anti-terrorism regime, the Court stated that “detention of the kind provided for in the Schedule represents the possibility of serious invasions of personal liberty”: [64]. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 12:38 pm
In the case of Rosemond v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 2:30 pm
SENTENCINGUnited States v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 8:38 am
In the case of Curtis v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 6:09 am
In Goldstein v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 3:29 pm
See Braun v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 12:19 pm
Loan Tr. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:58 am
In Romero-Mejia v. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 3:01 am
Becerra (challenge to California law requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to convey state-prescribed messages), Lozman v. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 1:55 pm
The case of Bernardoni v. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 9:06 am
While the state high court did find the truck driver and his employer were free from liability once local officials gave the all-clear for through-traffic, it found the government could be liable because sovereign immunity was not applicable in this case, as was waived by state statute. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 11:49 am
"Terry v. [read post]
2 Nov 2008, 11:10 am
The Hearing in Wyeth v. [read post]
