Search for: "MINISTER v. STATE" Results 701 - 720 of 4,031
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2013, 4:00 am by Administrator
New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) v. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 2:10 pm by Victoria Gallegos
Earlier this week, Turkish Foreign Minister Menlut Cavusoglu said of the decision that “[s]tatements that have no legal binding will have no benefit, but they will harm ties...If the United States wants to worsen ties, the decision is theirs. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 2:46 am by Laura Sandwell
G v Scottish Ministers & Anor, heard 7 – 8 October 2013. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 3:05 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 6:35 pm
The now-defunct Exchequer Court examined the issue back in 1964, in Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.) v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:00 am by The Legal Blog
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
 R (2000) 7 on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 8 March 2000. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 9:30 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland), heard 18 February 2015. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 4:00 am by Sean Vanderfluit
Eight months and a pandemic ago, the Supreme Court of Canada released the Vavilov trilogy (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 5:02 am by Beatrice Yahia
Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V report for NBC News. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 8:13 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland), heard 18 February 2015. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 3:38 am by Mathew Purchase, Matrix.
Relying on the seminal case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, the appellants argued that any scheme made under s 64(1A) must promote that objective. [read post]