Search for: "State v. Lively" Results 6061 - 6080 of 28,991
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2009, 3:12 pm
The LA Times reports that death row inmates in California have better living conditions and more privileges that those doing life in the state's maximum security prisons. [read post]
3 Jan 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
 It stated that the claimant had been passing confidential information to ex-employees of CSP who were working for a rival agency and that criminal proceedings were being considered (for the full text, see [4]). [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 9:03 pm by News Desk
The agency found multiple live and dead rodents, rodent nests, live raccoons, live cats, a dead possum, animal feces and urine-stained products. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:30 am by Adam Wagner
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 (07 July 2010) - Read Judgment The Supreme Court has ruled that the government’s “Anne Frank” policy of sending back gay refugees to their home countries where they feared persecution is unlawful as it breached their human rights.. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 3:59 pm by Giles Peaker
There is nothing in the DWP guidance issued by the DWP or the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 to state that incomes received from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) should not be taken into account for DHP purposes. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 10:00 am by Rosalind English
(N v Secretary of State for the Home Department).Even if extreme destitution can be proved, there must be a close and direct link between the destitution and the actions of the state. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 1:50 am by Rosalind English
The Queen on the application of Naik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1546 – read judgment The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker  from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful,  and that any interference with his rights was justified. [read post]