Search for: "Howes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections"
Results 321 - 340
of 526
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2020, 7:38 am
The Ministers are Oliver Dowden MP (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport); Caroline Dinenage MP (Minister for Digital and Culture) and Baroness Williams (Lords Minister, Home Office). [read post]
21 Dec 2013, 4:31 am
” Touby v. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 4:06 pm
He was granted permission to appeal on the question as to whether Steyn J was correct to say that the serious harm requirement needed to be satisfied at the time of the Commission’s statement. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 7:46 am
See, e.g., Bell v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 7:08 pm
This legislation also provides rules to states regarding how to properly administer FPUC in conjunction with other unemployment benefits, such as extended compensation. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 8:12 am
In Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
12 May 2019, 1:01 pm
Another decision is Public Citizen v. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 4:06 pm
ABC reports that pensioner Marion Collier is suing the NSW Country Women’s Association after being sacked as branch secretary, alleging she was falsely accused of defrauding the branch of $10. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 10:06 pm
Department of Conservation, etc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 210 The question “how much is enough? [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 4:15 am
” Watkins v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1044 The Foundation filed suit against the Department for failure to comply with CEQA, arguing that the Department’s inaction to maintain and repair the roof of a historic former hotel that it owned was an agency decision subject to CEQA. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1044 The Foundation filed suit against the Department for failure to comply with CEQA, arguing that the Department’s inaction to maintain and repair the roof of a historic former hotel that it owned was an agency decision subject to CEQA. [read post]
16 Jul 2022, 4:47 pm
ArgentinaMajul v. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 1:53 am
At its core, fairness requires the individual who would be affected by a decision to have the right to know of and address the matters that might be held against him before the decision-maker makes his decision (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey (No 2)). [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 11:29 pm
Benn was co-counsel for Johnson v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
Secretary, Indian Tea Association & Others (2001) 5 SCC 42, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of a nine-judge Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 4:45 pm
Surveillance Forbes had a piece “How AI Is Making An Impact On The Surveillance World”. [read post]
10 Aug 2023, 9:01 pm
In Moore v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Ramos v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:34 pm
But, while the word ‘shall' is often mandatory, particularly when used in legislation, it has, depending on the context, been interpreted on occasion as directory or exhortatory only: see for example R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. [read post]
