Search for: "Hale v. State"
Results 421 - 440
of 973
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a 4-3 majority (Hale, Kerr and Phillips dissenting). [read post]
7 May 2007, 12:14 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) David Leroy Hale v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:35 am
In State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 5:24 pm
VSIM Patent Co., LLC v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:56 pm
As Baroness Hale said at paragraph 73: It is not statute, but the common law, indeed the rule of law itself, which imposes upon the Secretary of State the duty to comply with his own stated policy, unless he has a good reason to depart from it in the particular case at the particular time. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:26 am
R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) (FC) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 28, 22/6/2011 – read judgment; press summary here Unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal are still subject to judicial review by the High Court, but only… [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
Lord Reed gave a concurring judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed. [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 2:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 11:48 am
Indianapolis, Indiana - In the matter of American Petroleum Institute v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 11:00 am
It is difficult to conceive of a case that better fits this description than R (Miller & Anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. [read post]
23 May 2009, 7:51 am
United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 1:01 pm
Walden v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
The justices were also divided as to how to answer this question, with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale agreeing with Lord Carnwath; Lords Lloyd-Jones, Reed and Sumption declining to give a view; and Lord Wilson dissenting. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 10:06 pm
Lippmann is cited:Unlike in the classic case of Egbert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:15 am
But even in criminal proceedings account must be taken of the article 8 rights of the perceived victim: see SN v Sweden, App no 34209/96, 2 July 2002. [read post]
19 Sep 2020, 8:29 am
First up: the state-court case of Shahrokh Mireskandari v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 5:57 am
Russell v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 1:50 am
R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 1:30 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 1:43 pm
The case is Javier Cardenas et al. v. [read post]
