Search for: "Pham v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 83
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2015, 4:34 am
On 25 February 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgments in R (oao Rotherham Metropolitan BC and Ors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 6. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 10:25 am
Hammer v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 3:17 am
In regards to the ground that the respondent’s decision was disproportionate under EU law, the CJEU judgment in Rottman did not state explicitly that a Member State’s decision as to the acquisition or loss of national citizenship was outside the scope of EU law. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 3:19 pm
” For example, in Pham v. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 11:00 am
Secretary of State for the Home Department v B2 case in the UK:- Case Watch: UK Supreme Court Addresses "B2" Statelessness Challenge Open Society Foundations, Nov. 2014) [text]- Case Watch: UK Supreme Court Struggles with Pham Statelessness Conundrum (Open Society Foundations, Nov. 2014) [text]- Right to Citizenship? [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:31 am
Rankin v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 6:39 pm
– Chicago lawyer Kenneth Dolin of Seyfarth Shaw on the firm’s Employer Labor Relations Blog Waiting for Claim Assignment Doesn’t Toll Statute of Limitations: American Family v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:20 am
While the decision in R. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 1:19 pm
In the case of Huerta v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 7:14 am
Pham, White & Case LLP R. [read post]
14 Apr 2013, 4:00 am
Pham (Alta. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 7:43 am
Often other state and federal agencies, including the U.S. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 6:02 am
Often other state and federal agencies, including the U.S. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 3:32 pm
Pham and D'Alonzo v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 3:56 am
People v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 10:52 am
Garcia v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 9:55 am
Pham). [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm
Pham v. [read post]
