Search for: "State v. Locke" Results 541 - 560 of 3,942
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2011, 6:15 am by Dave
  HHJ Mitchell quashed that decision, finding that Reg 6(2) operates when a person is no longer working, ie if the illness happens after the applicant lost his job and even if the illness was unrelated to his work; and that he was bound by the decision in FB v Secretary of State for Work  [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC) to find that temporary in para (a) meant not permanent. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:15 am by Dave
  HHJ Mitchell quashed that decision, finding that Reg 6(2) operates when a person is no longer working, ie if the illness happens after the applicant lost his job and even if the illness was unrelated to his work; and that he was bound by the decision in FB v Secretary of State for Work  [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC) to find that temporary in para (a) meant not permanent. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 11:23 am by Bill Easton
  When it came time to actually pull the trigger however, Brewer stated that the victim locked eyes with him and told him not to do it. [read post]
21 May 2014, 4:35 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The defendant denied drinking alcohol to the police officer but stated that the passengers were drinking. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Strassberg, Scrutinizing Polygamy: Utah’s Brown v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:49 am by Grant Sullivan
The court was unconvinced by Montana’s argument under Locke v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 8:30 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 111477, Sept. 20, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court rejected complaints that inmates are prohibited from attending religious services when the entire prison is on lock down.In Townsend v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:06 pm
State of IsraelGerd Morgenthaler & Christian Heuser, Die Verfassung der Republik Aserbaidschan - Entwicklungslinien und Perspektiven [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am by SHG
  Or, more accurately, yes, we could, but not after People v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 6:48 pm by Jeralyn
Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Schwarzenegger v. [read post]