Search for: "State v. Makee R."
Results 281 - 300
of 34,856
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2016, 4:35 am
In Stacy v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 2:30 am
RK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 456; [2011] WLR (D) 147“There was no general rule to the effect that any returned asylum seeker who would be in a position to avoid risk of persecution only by falsely claiming to support the regime in his home country would be entitled to asylum; rather, it was necessary to make a close examination of the particular circumstances of the individual, as each case would turn on its own facts. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 2:19 am
BG v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1478 (Admin); [2011] WLR (D) 192 “On an appeal under section 10(1)(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 against the renewal of a non-derogating control order, it was not part of the court’s task to determine whether the earlier decision under section 2(1)(a) to make the original control order had been or was now flawed. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 10:57 am
The Court wrote, quoting the State Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Bishop v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 7:34 am
The irreducible constitutional minimum, she suggested, requires states to recognize that those who are incapable of moral judgment and cannot tell the difference between right and wrong—a standard drawn from the 1843 British case R. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
Prior to 2008, Alice Kimble did not make any deposits into or withdrawals from the UBS account. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 8:49 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 4:53 pm
The Utah Court of Appeals recently filed a memorandum decision regarding an appeal in the case of State v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:37 am
” Supported by the interveners – Bail for Immigration Detainees and Medical Justice – O successfully argued that the authority of R (Francis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail for Immigration Detainees intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 718 had been wrongly decided. [read post]
29 May 2013, 4:54 am
Everyone's a victim...Whether DSM-V may or may not have an impact directly on workers' compensation systems is irrelevant - DSM-V makes more people ill when they were previously considered to be normally functioning.We don't need more ill people in this country. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 11:31 am
The Supreme Court's decision on sexual assault and consent in R. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2015, 9:59 am
Syrien als Herausforderung für die internationale Gemeinschaft Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum, Befindlichkeiten im Völkerrecht – Das Beispiel des Russland-Ukraine-Konfliktes Rolf H. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 2:53 pm
Mar. 30, 2009) (Ex. 1), the Honorable Randall R. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 1:16 pm
In State v. [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 4:10 am
State Farm’s “reprehensible conduct” In its Campbell v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 11:12 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 5:07 am
The CA stated that the question is therefore whether there is an implied right of association with other prisoners which amounts to a “civil right”? [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
See paras 23 – 29 of R (English UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726 for a further explanation of the workings of PBS. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 5:31 am
The principle of a MIR per se is not objectionable as the Court states (see Konstantinov v Netherlands cited at para. 84) but the impact of the new threshold is surely a relevant consideration in considering compatibility. [read post]
