Search for: "State v. Cameron" Results 461 - 480 of 933
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Apr 2015, 9:29 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently decided the case of Breton Energy, L.L.C., et al. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm by INFORRM
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 10:40 am by Jeff Redding
In the well-known 2005 precedent, Minister of Home Affairs v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 2:10 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
TN & MA (Afghanistan) (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 2-5 March 2015. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that “[t]he Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 5:14 pm by INFORRM
Hardeep Singh is a freelance journalist and was the defendant in His Holiness v Singh. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 3:38 am by INFORRM
It has even been reported that David Cameron, during his speech at the GG2 Leadership Awards, cited Dr Ranger’s business success as an example of how individuals from Asian backgrounds can become integrated into British society and act as role models for younger generations. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 1:27 am by John Enser
"Building on this theme, it later emerged that on the very same day, David Cameron wrote to Commission President Juncker sending a document setting out the UK priorities for the reform of the Digital Single Market. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 4:43 pm by INFORRM
The case illustrated the length to which the state will sometimes litigate to prevent embarrassing information being made public. [read post]