Search for: "Clarke v. State"
Results 861 - 880
of 3,492
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm
Clark then stated that the establishment was free of racism. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:51 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Faith Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 907 (29 July 2011) Suckrajh, R (on the application of) v The Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 938 (29 July 2011) Iqbal v Ahmed [2011] EWCA Civ 900 (29 July 2011) Hayes v Merseyside Police [2011] EWCA Civ 911 (29 July 2011) Austin & Ors v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 928 (29 July 2011) Modi… [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm
State v. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 11:14 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 1:47 pm
Doyle v. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 9:35 am
Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 7:25 am
The opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in that consolidated appeal is known as Brown v. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 5:09 am
Clark v Allen & Overy LLP 2019 NY Slip Op 30146(U) January 16, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 453138/2017 Judge: Arlene P. [read post]
8 Oct 2024, 6:58 am
VanDerStok and Lackey v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 6:41 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 8:29 am
By contrast, as the Court of Appeal noted at para 42, in many of the leading cases the treatment in itself caused disadvantage: in Clark v Novacold Ltd [1999] ICR 951 the claimant was dismissed; in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL the claim was evicted; and in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337 the claimant chief inspector had part of her duties as a manager removed. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 11:22 am
In three separate motions filed in Clark v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 11:33 am
New State Ice Co. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 12:04 pm
Fratus v County of Contra Costa, 2018 WL 3082009 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
As Lord Carnwath concluded after his illuminating discussion of the standard required of planning reasons (at paras 35-42), the question will be “whether the information so provided by the authority leaves room for ‘genuine doubt … as to what (it) has decided and why’” (at para 42, citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263). [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:16 am
State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 6:40 am
The plaintiffs argue that this creates a separate tier for how votes are scrutinized in Clark County and the rest of Nevada counties and cite the highly controversial Bush v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 7:04 am
[State v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 12:55 pm
Michael Clark, Jr.In the recent decision of Carithers v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 6:30 am
Lastly, Lord Justice Clark dismissed Popplewell J’s third reason above by stating “I do not regard the validity of my interpretation to be impugned because there is an element of tautology” and “I do not regard his erratic use of the comma as any real guide to meaning. [read post]
