Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 321 - 340
of 61,148
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Aug 2016, 7:42 am
MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, heard 5-6 July 2016. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 12:22 pm
In State v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 10:03 am
We illustrate this approach with Salazar v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 8:48 am
Davis v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:44 am
Up until this case, that position had support in domestic law (see AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 4 All ER 1127; R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487; and R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 4 All ER 193). [read post]
24 May 2013, 10:34 am
This takes us back to a case in 2005, NCTA v. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 2:46 pm
Timbs v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 1:30 pm
ROWE, ET AL. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:31 pm
United States. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 11:30 pm
II) State v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 7:39 pm
Co. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 9:30 am
As Justice Sotomayor highlighted in her United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 10:45 am
United States. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:21 am
SerVaas Inc v Rafidain Bank: [2012] UKSC 40; [2012] WLR (D) 257 “Whether property was ‘for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of section 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not depend on the property’s origin but on the use to which the state had chosen to put it.” WLR Daily, 17th August 2012 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 4:41 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
The Supreme Court this past Monday handed down its decision in United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 3:32 pm
In PLIVA v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:11 pm
" Cumulatively, this means that the broadest notion of patentable subject matter as represented by State Street is not the law. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 11:30 am
–Garnier v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 12:27 pm
Discovery is by no means absolute, however: under the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Intel v. [read post]
