Search for: "Dudley v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 125
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2012, 5:43 am by sally
Supreme Court Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 13 (21 March 2012) ST Eritrea, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 12 (21 March 2012) Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11 (21 March 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Mohamed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 331 (20 March 2012) Kennedy v Charity Commission [2012] EWCA Civ… [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 3:02 am by Walter Olson
“”Administrative State Is THE Leading Threat to Civil Liberties of Our Era'”: Nick Gillespie interview with Philip Hamburger at Reason; Beyond the deference debates: White House Counsel Don McGahn speaks on Chenery I v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 3:31 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Rakib, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 870 (01 April 2011) Adam & Anor, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 865 (01 April 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Owens v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 359 (31 March 2011) Haresign v Clydesdale Bank Plc (t/a Yorkshire Bank) [2011] EWCA Civ 344 (01 April 2011) Eliassen & Anor v Eliassen & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 361 (01 April 2011) Chater, R (on the… [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 7:50 am by David Oscar Markus
Along with Clarence Darrow, Dudley Field Malone defended John Scopes in the 1925 "Scopes Trial," formally known as State v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 7:05 am by David Markus
Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008), and United States v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 8:39 pm by Simon Gibbs
” Again, in Dudley Fleming v Chief Constable of Sussex [2004] EWCA Civ 643, Potter LJ observed at paragraph 36: “The principles are too well known to require to be set out in detail. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 6:01 pm
Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 993 P.2d 901 (2000) (finding claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Washington's public policy against gender discrimination based upon statutes and judicial decisions); but see Jarman v. [read post]