Search for: "State v. W"
Results 7121 - 7140
of 15,641
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 12:54 pm
In Buckingham v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 9:13 am
In Revello Medical Management, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 9:01 am
Taylor v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 8:09 am
Over the past six months, we’ve posted about an Oregon case making its way up the court’s tiers: Abraham v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 3:55 am
The court said that “[w]hile the result is harsh, it is one the law compels. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:11 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Shakespeare, 96 W. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:52 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 7:38 am
Miller v. [read post]
5 Mar 2022, 9:27 pm
See Kisor v. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 7:08 pm
The Supreme Court recently issued its long-awaited decision in Wal-Mart v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 9:37 am
Below, Stanford Law School’s Jacqueline de Armas recaps Tuesday’s ruling in Graham County Soil & Water Dist. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 1:52 pm
Mawji v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 7:31 am
In Nara v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 5:19 am
., et al. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm
One of the Legislature’s stated purposes in amending Section 90.702 was “to adopt the standards for expert testimony in the courts of this state as provided in Daubert v. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
[W]hen a party cannot satisfy its state duties without the Federal Government’s special permission and assistance, which is dependent on the exercise of judgment by a federal agency, that party cannot independently satisfy those state duties for pre-emption purposes.Mensing, 131 S. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 9:20 am
[w]hat one purchaser may rely upon in entering into a contract may not be material to another purchaser”) First District Court of Appeal Davis v. [read post]
