Search for: "May v. State" Results 3901 - 3920 of 119,555
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2024, 12:57 am by INFORRM
On Thursday 16 May 2024 there will be an injunction application in the privacy case of Department for Education v Hercules KB-2024-000389 Reserved judgements Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot,  heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others,  heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis)… [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 7:04 am by sally
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (QB) (21 January 2010) High Court (Administrative Court) Mhango, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1321 (Admin) (10 June 2010) Am, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2010] EWHC 1228 (Admin) (28 May 2010) The Law Society of England and Wales, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor… [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 2:08 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
However she stated since this was not a remedy sought by the appellants the Court should invite further submissions before finally deciding the outcome of the appeal. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 10:25 pm by Rosalind English
The leading case on the state’s duty to investigate, Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653 makes it clear that the investigative obligation of the State may – depending on what facts are at issue – go well beyond the ascertainment of individual fault and reach questions of system, management and institutional culture. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 1:10 pm by Tom Goldstein
I happened to be in the courtroom today for the argument in Doe v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 11:42 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
C. 2254(d), federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state-court decision denying relief involves “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court. [read post]