Search for: "Settles v. State" Results 661 - 680 of 17,484
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2010, 7:42 am by Beth Graham
On November 24, 2010, a state district judge in Tarrant County ordered another round of mediation to be completed by December 29th stating, “The parties need to exhaust all efforts to finally settle this long-running dispute. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 9:00 am by Elizabeth Prochaska
In this case, formerly known as Quila and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal held that the amendment to the Immigration Rules was disproportionate. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am by Elizabeth Prochaska, Matrix Chambers.
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am by Elizabeth Prochaska, Matrix Chambers.
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:00 am by Brian Price
  The Superior Court follows the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in State Farm v. [read post]
1 Jan 2021, 8:06 am by Joel R. Brandes
In re H (A Minor) (Abduction: Rights of Custody), [2000] 2 A.C. 291, 1999 WL 1319095 (appeal taken from Eng.); see Fawcett v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 11:16 am
Of course, any state law that created this result would make uniform regulation impossible, and would impermissibly stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress in creating the Exchange Act's self-regulatory regime, including the portion of that regime applicable to registered clearing agencies under Section 17A.Whistler Investments, Inc. v. [read post]