Search for: "WILLIAMS v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS"
Results 61 - 80
of 135
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2023, 1:41 am
Warby LJ, with whom Sharp P and Singh LJ agreed, held that Steyn J had been correct in principle to reconsider the issue of serious harm in relation to the period after Ms Cadwalladr’s public interest defence fell away. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 12:00 pm
Department of Homeland Security, et al. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am
Jessop v. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm
Data Privacy and Data Protection On 26 May 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 11:00 am
It is true that the president has ultimate supervision over federal law enforcement and can direct the husbandry of resources within the Justice Department, but such a selective persecution cannot comport with the law of the land. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am
Much of the evidence I discuss here has been ignored or overlooked in the existing scholarship on Section Three, and most of it does not appear in any of the briefs in Trump v. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 4:05 pm
Newspapers, Journalism and Regulation The Press Gazette reports on an IPSO ruling that Daily Mail should publish a correction over an article which claimed up to 300,000 illegal migrants lived in a single Paris suburb. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
That happens to be the correct legal result. [read post]
24 May 2020, 7:38 am
The Ministers are Oliver Dowden MP (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport); Caroline Dinenage MP (Minister for Digital and Culture) and Baroness Williams (Lords Minister, Home Office). [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 12:36 am
PR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 988 (11 August 2011): Court of Appeal considers application of “some other compelling reason” test for 3rd bite of cherry immigration appeals Connelly, Re Judicial Review [2011] NIQB 62 (5 August 2011): Northern Ireland High Court rejects UK court’s decision in Hookway (96 hour detention on bail case), says court “failed to recognise the context… [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm
[Hall v Wandsworth at 29]Mitu v Camden LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1249 is taken as an explanation of Hall, when Lewison LJ says:Section 203 (4) distinguishes between a “decision” and an “issue”. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm
[Hall v Wandsworth at 29]Mitu v Camden LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1249 is taken as an explanation of Hall, when Lewison LJ says:Section 203 (4) distinguishes between a “decision” and an “issue”. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 7:32 am
[FN] [FN] See, e.g., Ozawa v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 12:12 pm
This claim is contradicted by a wide range of authoritative legal sources—and were it correct, would lead to absurd consequences. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 4:06 pm
On 23-24 June 2022, there were applications in Piepenbrock v LSE before Heather Williams J. [read post]
8 Mar 2022, 5:00 am
Supreme Court’s statement in Reiter v. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 7:46 am
Plaintiffs' purported equitable cause of action, based only on an ultra vires claim, would have been unknown to William Blackstone, Chancellor Kent, or Justice Story. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
On November 14, 2014, in Priests for Life v. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 8:55 pm
Circuit issued its long-awaited ruling in Friedman v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
Case No.: 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Respondents. [read post]
