Search for: "State v. Force" Results 9421 - 9440 of 32,555
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Mar 2018, 5:45 am by alysondrake
She decided that the only way to force medical schools to accept women was to change the legislation and headed to law school. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 9:35 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM (Scotland) was heard on 9th April. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 6:27 am
It also forces the State to shoulder the significant costs of establishing the exchange—quite a burden, as many States learned (or are learning) the hard way. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 2:18 pm by CJLF Staff
  Richard Weizel of Reuters reports that last August, in the case of Santiago v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 12:22 pm by Lyle Denniston
United States); whether it violates the “privileges or immunities” of a businessman who wants to operate a ferry service to be denied a permit to compete with an existing service on a public lake in Washington State (Courtney v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
In proceedings by prisoners subsequently heard in Scotland (Smith v Scott [2007] SC 345), Northern Ireland (R v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh [1997] NIQB 18) and in England and Wales (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439)  the relevant Secretary of State has expressly accepted that the ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with the ECHR. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 6:35 am by Adam Chandler
AnimalFeeds International and Merck & Co. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 11:16 am by John Elwood
United States, 17-5165 Issue: Whether Richardson v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 11:10 am
The child was moved from Hardin County to Louisville when the relocation was granted and then forced by the court to return to Hardin County. [read post]
11 Jan 2009, 2:46 pm
Starting from today, 11 January 2009, Regulation no. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) is applicable in the Member States (see its Art. 32), excepting Denmark. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 10:29 am by Andres
This is in response to the CJEU case of Maximiliam Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, which declared invalid the previous agreement called Safe Harbor (our take on the case here). [read post]