Search for: "State v. Elias V."
Results 21 - 40
of 258
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2011, 6:16 am
Henderson v. [read post]
13 Aug 2022, 5:51 pm
United States, 959 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir. 1992). [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 1:05 pm
Elias v Spencer [2010] EWCA Civ 246 [Not on Bailii yet] This was a permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal hearing. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 9:02 am
Stevic and INS v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 4:42 am
See Grausz v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:18 am
Elias v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 7:15 am
Elias LJ dissented on the point, but the majority held that the UT had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it did. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 7:34 am
The Court of Appeal had already refused permission to appeal on this point some time ago in the case of Elias v Spencer (no relation!). [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 9:51 pm
State v. [read post]
14 May 2018, 6:46 am
Both student contributor Kristen Elia and I predicted a win for the defense. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 8:58 am
The contract expressly stated that the relationship between the parties was that of client and independent contractor. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 5:58 am
Groch v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:16 am
Lord Wilson noted that there is evidence of extensive torture by state forces in Sri Lanka at the relevant time. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 7:57 am
One factor was the clinical variability in any case, which was stated to allow being up to 20% off in the regime; another was the influence of the judgment of the pharmacokineticist in a field that was not slavish to calculations. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 5:17 am
Elias LJ had been right in the present case. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 2:17 am
It approved the view of Elias LJ in the Court of Appeal, that very considerable weight should be given to the fact that injuries which are self inflicted by proxy are likely to be extremely rare. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am
Groch v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 7:40 pm
PUB OCEAN LIMITEDVICTOR ELIAS PHOTOGRAPHY V. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 12:43 am
The structure of s 117B(6) is straightforward because it unambiguously states that there is no public interest in removal where a person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 11:17 am
In Henderson v. [read post]
