Search for: "State v. Si"
Results 561 - 580
of 773
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Oct 2011, 9:23 am
One thing which also may be guaranteed is that there will be unintended effects – as socio-legal scholars describe it, there will be a gap between the intended effects of the formal law and everyday life.In R(CPAG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWHC 2616 (Admin), CPAG challenged two of the new rules – relating to the maximum weekly caps, and the reduction of the maximum size in accommodation eligible for hb (from five to four bedrooms) –… [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 2:53 am
State v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 8:55 am
This is turn depends on whether arbitrators can be considered as employees for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief ) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660). [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 8:55 am
This is turn depends on whether arbitrators can be considered as employees for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief ) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660). [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:29 am
” Id. at 763 (empha- sis added). [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 9:00 pm
Dans un tel cas, la validité d'une demande est affectée par des événements postérieurs à son dépôt. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 11:13 am
State v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:03 am
He says that as this is asserted as state practice, many will see it as freeing the United States to do what it wants; but he thinks this will lead other states to believe that they’re accountable for their uses of covert force, as the United States says it is. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 9:30 am
[Mechanicsburg, Pa.] : Pennsylvania Bar Institute, c2011.KFP81 .P4 NO.6942PropertyAmerican property : a history of how, why, and what we own / Stuart Banner.Banner, Stuart, 1963-Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 2011.KF562 .B36 2011PropertyReappraisals in the law of property / by John V. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:35 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:14 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 9:19 pm
State v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 4:30 am
Helm v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 5:35 am
State v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
In DiGeronimo v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 2:24 pm
I, L.P. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 5:11 am
State v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:15 am
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
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]
11 Jul 2011, 3:15 am
Corp. v. [read post]
