Search for: "Starks v. Davis"
Results 21 - 40
of 110
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2020, 5:01 am
Kinney v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 7:10 am
Fish and Wildlife Service v. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm
James School v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 11:46 am
” United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
The Court of Appeal (Dame Victoria Sharp P, Sir Geoffrey Vos C and Davis LJ) unanimously allowed Mr Lloyd’s appeal (with the Chancellor giving the only substantive judgment), granting him permission to serve out. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 6:17 am
Katz, Sabastian V. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
Davis. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 9:00 pm
The following year, the Court held, in Davis v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:02 am
The outcome in Trump v. [read post]
4 May 2018, 6:01 am
Silk and Sabastian V. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 6:53 pm
Ventura, Prosecutor v. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 2:02 am
Given that the ONS re-classification as public was put before Davis J in R(Macleod) v Peabody and did not stop that judge problematically (imho) categorising the act there concerned (a transfer) as private, I doubt very much that the re-re-classification as private will be of any real significance. [read post]
23 Apr 2017, 1:18 pm
Crane, supra.The Supreme Court then explained that[i]n opposition, Cratsley argues that the Plaintiff's argument stands in stark contrast to established precedent in New York. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 9:01 pm
In Wallace v. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 6:28 am
” There, she noted, the Board “restated its joint employer standard and reaffirmed its commitment to the standard articulated by the Third Circuit in NLRB v. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 10:52 am
Foster, Don, with Dennis Davis and Diane Sandler (1987) Detention and Torture in South Africa: Psychological, Legal, and Historical Studies. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 12:01 pm
Johnston v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
Starks, No. 50,351-C [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
Starks, No. 50,351-C [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 4:05 pm
On the recovery of success fees, Mitting J accepted that there was a stark conflict between the ratio of House of Lords’ judgment in Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) [2005] UKHL 61 and MGN v UK, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in the same case. [read post]
