Search for: "FELTS v. STATE"
Results 621 - 640
of 5,847
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2018, 12:43 am
The structure of s 117B(6) is straightforward because it unambiguously states that there is no public interest in removal where a person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:57 am
The plaintiff states that felt a pop in his lower back/hip when he picked up a lock line. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 5:47 am
The Appeal The main ground of appeal was based on the common law right of access to court, established in Raymond v Honey [1983 1 AC.1, 13] and a series of pre Human Rights cases such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198, and R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 604 at 621[26]. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 8:42 am
He also authored Zeran v. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 2:41 pm
The case Meghan Christmas v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 10:09 am
Well, except for the fact that Illinois v. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 1:14 am
Bommai v. [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:15 pm
On May 10, 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v. [read post]
PA: Need to secure a vehicle for officer safety does not require that the officer actually see a gun
15 Jul 2008, 12:23 pm
State v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:35 am
BNSF Railway Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2009, 11:23 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 10:50 am
U.S. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 9:58 am
In State of Washington v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 8:49 am
Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 7:13 am
State v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 2:00 am
The trial court awarded Mother less time than both parents felt was best for the children. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 7:14 am
"Finally, Justice Tom stated that the decisions of the First Department in this regard were contrary not only to the Court of Appeals, but also to the other three Departments of the Appellate Division, which have all found that questions of fact existed as to the adequacy of the safety device where the injured worker fell after receiving an electric shock (see Grogan v Norlite Corp., 282 A.D.2d 781 [3d Dept 2001]; Donovan v CNY Consol. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 11:19 am
Alvarez v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 3:45 am
Cabrales and State v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 5:02 pm
The district judge in Claiborne thought that the answer was yes, in light of the Supreme Court's conversion of the Guidelines from mandatory to advisory in United States v. [read post]
