Search for: "State v. Kay"
Results 281 - 300
of 641
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2013, 11:05 am
See Kay Berry, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 10:11 am
J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Manny Pacquiao v. [read post]
26 Oct 2013, 8:08 am
Over the last several years I have been considering the issue of corruption generally, --Soft Extra Territorialism and American Anti-Corruption Campaigns, Sept. 12, 2006; --Soft Extra Territorialism and Anti-Corruption Campaigns: On the Perverse Folly of Corrupt States, Sept. 15, 2006);--Rockwell International v. [read post]
26 Oct 2013, 5:59 am
The 1987 Texas Supreme Court opinion styled McGovern v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 8:07 am
United States: A Death Knell for Military Commissions? [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 10:41 am
AffirmedCase Name: ZYGMUNT JOHN SAMIEC v. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 8:26 pm
Jones v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
28 Jul 2013, 6:43 pm
The 2001 SCC case Kay cites is Trinity Western University v. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 3:51 am
Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon, a request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece), exactly two years ago to the day. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:23 pm
The case, United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 11:11 am
Here is the abstract: In R v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 10:06 am
Levine) Jenia Iontcheva Turner – Effective Remedies for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: A New Look After Lafler v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 5:28 am
Stanwood v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 11:28 am
Mark Kay) in the District Court case in 2009. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 10:05 am
See Kiobel v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:56 am
On 11 April 2013 Maurice Kay LJ refused permission to appeal in the case of Mengi v Hermitage. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 3:50 pm
Kay McIff. [read post]
