Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 5961 - 5980
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2008, 5:55 am
See Walton, United States Trustee v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 11:54 am
Of course, given departures and Booker variances, United States v. [read post]
18 May 2008, 8:30 am
Tomorrow, (May 19) an interesting SLP is coming up as a fresh matter before the Vacation Bench of Justice C.K.Thakker and Lokeshwar Singh Panta in the matter of Union of India v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 11:00 am
(Murphy v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 7:49 am
Michelle Davis won in State v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 1:59 am
R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 464; [2008] WLR (D) 150 “The scope of the deeming provision in Sch 3, Pt 2, para 3(2) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, which required states listed in Sch 2, Pt 2, para 2 of the Act to be treated as countries safe for a person to be returned, was limited to the actual process of executive decision or adjudication of whether a… [read post]
12 May 2008, 2:37 pm
Markman, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Rand, and others in the Michigan Attorney General's office. [read post]
9 May 2008, 11:30 am
Nelson v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 12:31 am
United States, 370 US 294, 325 (1962) [read post]
1 May 2008, 3:00 pm
In Metters v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 12:14 pm
These paras, 27-31 are well worth reading as a masterpiece of teleological analysis. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 5:52 am
" (Para. 166.) [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 12:22 pm
In addition, guidance from the Secretary of State issued in July 2006 suggests at Chap 8, para 8.34 that it should not be regarded as reasonable to continue to occupy such accommodation as women’s refuges in the medium and longer term; and at Chap 16, para 16.27, in a discussion of suitability (not reasonableness) that placement in a refuge should be a temporary expedient only for the minimum period necessary. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 3:58 pm
Voyager Pharmaceutical Corp. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2008, 7:41 am
" Owen v. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 2:47 pm
El primer argumento se basaba en el antiguo y conocido precedente Wilko v. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 3:45 am
C-061069, 2007-Ohio-5874, at para. 18. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 8:39 am
This short film was banned at the time of its 1980s release and is the subject of a well-known European Court of Human Rights decision, Wingrove v UK, which Wingrove lost, with the UK benefitting from a wide ‘margin of appreciation’ in its regulation of certain kinds of offensive speech; the influential elements include the finding that “whereas there is little scope under Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on… [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 4:45 am
The Court agrees (para 26) that the right to eat what one wants is protected by Article 21. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 11:01 am
In Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. [read post]
