Search for: "Wagner v. Secretary of State"
Results 21 - 40
of 122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2020, 9:39 am
The Javitz-Wagner-O’Day Act of 1971 (JWOD) expanded upon the original legislation by extending its coverage not only to the blind but other severely disabled individuals as well. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 12:42 pm
Coast Guard; Michael Murphy, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs; and Marie Mak, the director for contracting and national security acquisitions at the Government Accountability Office. [read post]
11 Oct 2019, 3:00 am
The 2010 SpeechNow v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 9:54 am
With Department of Commerce v. [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:06 pm
Kenya The Star reports on a case by Mombasa speaker Harub Khatri against Labour Secretary Nelson Marwa. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 10:01 pm
Wagner who had been calld on by the President to act as his private Secretary. [read post]
27 May 2018, 4:36 pm
In an attempt to persuade Tory Rebels to vote against the Leveson 2 amendments, the government added an amendment 62BC which provides that the Secretary of State mandate a review of press regulators alternative dispute resolution procedures, Brian Cathcart considers this in an INFORRM post. [read post]
20 May 2018, 4:13 pm
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia The Guardian reports on the evidence given by radio host Alan Jones in the Brisbane Supreme Court the libel case brought by the Wagner family. [read post]
26 Nov 2017, 4:39 pm
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia The Chronicle reports that the libel claim by the Wagner family against the Spectator Australia has been settled. [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 4:05 pm
On 11 October 2017 Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Digital [sic], Culture, Media and Sport gave evidence to House of Commons Committee which covers her department. [read post]
16 Sep 2017, 6:32 am
Kahn flagged Judge Cooper’s latest opinion in United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 11:17 am
The Supreme Court stayed the Ninth Circuit’s September 7 decision in Hawaii v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 2:58 pm
Department of Health [2017] UKSC 41 that the Secretary of State for Health had not acted unlawfully in refusing free abortion services in England to women travelling from Northern Ireland. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 4:44 pm
In other news New South Wales may become the first state to institute laws for invasions of privacy, after the State Parliament’s law and justice committee recommended that NSW should “lead the way” in Australia with laws of this type. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 4:29 pm
Lola v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 9:50 am
And if he has that power, can Congress command the president and his secretary of state to issue a formal statement that contradicts that earlier recognition? [read post]
10 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm
The top 5 posts on Inforrm this week were Facebook’s Community Standards: Severed heads are okay, but nipples are bad (unless accompanied by a baby) – Gideon Benaim and Jon Oakley Law and Media Round Up – 4 August 2014 Case Law: PNM v Times Newspapers, Open justice and reporting information about a suspect – Hugh Tomlinson QC The Sun just keeps getting it wrong on human rights – Adam Wagner Case Law: R (T) v Secretary of… [read post]
19 Oct 2013, 8:53 pm
Christopher Wagner and others, from South Africa. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
