Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,872
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2008, 12:22 pm
The Court of Appeal, in the sole judgment of Lord Justice Wilson, found that Sidhu could not be accommodated with the later judgments in Puhlhofer v Hillingdon LBC [1986] AC 484 and R v Brent LBC ex p Awua [1996] 1 AC 55. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 12:59 pm
United States 20-518Issue: Whether Michigan v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 1:46 pm
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 2:00 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 5:42 am
Medtronic and Levine v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 2:02 am
On Tuesday 4 March 2014 is the matter of R (George) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:10 am
This rationale is referred to as the ‘Bonnick Principle’ following the 2002 Privy Council decision in Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
Doody [1994] 1 AC para 531 at page 560.) [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal (Arden, Black, Briggs LJJ) dismissed the appeal, finding that the approach to proportionality under the Equality Act 2010 was the same as that under Article 8 in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] 2 AC 186: 27 In my judgment, the approach to proportionality under Article 8 in Pinnock and Powell is in fact the same approach as… [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 2:02 am
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 2:47 pm
In the recent case of AC v DR decided by New York Justice Stacy D. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
Remarkably, the Court has only focused on this substantive question at all in one case, Burns v. [read post]
13 Feb 2019, 3:37 am
United States, ex rel. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
In the oft quoted words of Willes J in East v Holmes ((1858) 1 F&F 347, 349), “If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there was something to point to the particular individual“ In the leading English case of Knupffer v Express Newspapers ([1944] AC 116) the “Daily Express” published an article referring to “The quislings on whom Hitler flatters himself he can build a pro-German… [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 4:25 pm
Other cases, including Gros v Crook ((1969) 113 SJ 408) and Citizens Life Assurance Co Ltd v Brown ([1904] AC 423) appeared to support that approach. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 4:11 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCivil Practice
FIRST DEPARTMENTEmployment
Disability Discrimination Suit's Dismissal Reversed; Claims Stated Under State, City Human Rights Laws
Vig v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 10:17 am
In Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 7:52 am
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (PA State Police). [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 4:00 am
Gold, The Demise of Roe v Wade Undermines Freedom of Religion, (ACS Blogs, Expert Forum, August 2022).Joshua Schroeder, Rethinking Rights in a Disappearing Penumbra: How to Expand Upon Reproductive Rights in Court After Dobbs, (54 N.M. [read post]
