Search for: "Elias v. Elia"
Results 321 - 340
of 398
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2012, 12:27 am
That may be so, and the key parts of Bailey are rehearsed in this judgment, but we are also reminded of other cases with a different emphasis, such as R(Elias) v SS for Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 1293 in which it was held that: The clear purpose of (Section 149) is to require public bodies to give advance consideration to the issue of (race) discrimination before making any policy decisions that may be effected by such an issue. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 5:20 am
Elias/Savion Adver., Inc., 811 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 1:23 pm
Rules create the so-called “bright lines” between entitlement and disentitlement; rules are also, by their nature, insensitive to particular household circumstances.In two recent decisions of the the Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeal Chamber, the rules have been challenged as being insufficiently sensitive to individual household needs: RG v SSWP and North Wiltshire DC (HB) [2011] UKUT 198 (AAC) and IB v Birmingham CC [2011] UKUT 23 (AAC). [read post]
13 Apr 2013, 10:00 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 8:13 am
The second AP report, "Calif. scrambled for execution drug," is by Paul Elias. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 8:24 am
Rosen’s article Katcoff v. [read post]
3 May 2018, 7:45 am
Bank v. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 1:03 pm
DYNEGY INC. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 11:05 am
The Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 comes in response to the ongoing FBI v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 8:14 am
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 8:14 am
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
28 May 2008, 2:02 am
The forthcoming Judgment in the Djibouti 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]
19 May 2014, 2:51 pm
"Votan" Marcelo Alegre, Susana Cayuso, Sebastián Elias, Alberto Garay, Lucas Grosman, Roberto Gargarella, Santiago Legarre, Carlos Rosenkrantz y Martín Farrell. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 5:55 am
Joseph Votel (January 29, 2024) The Just Security Podcast: ICJ Provisional Measures in South Africa v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 2:03 am
ELLISLeagle, Inc.App. 1991) (refusing to reverse conviction because of "technical" violation of rules of criminal procedure, when defendant failed to show that he was ...See all stories on this topic Bill to drop charges against most disengagement protesters gets boostJerusalem PostAs for those who were not convicted but who the court declared had committed crimes, their cases will be closed and their names erased from the criminal...See all stories on this topic … [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 1:42 pm
Shoun v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 4:26 am
In [2011] EWCA Civ 890 the Chancellor of the High Court, together with Lords Justices Jackson and Elias, took just 51 paragraphs to affirm the position taken by Proudman J. [read post]
