Search for: "Laws v. State"
Results 941 - 960
of 155,323
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2009, 4:57 am
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others Supreme Court “Where travellers were in trespassing occupation of part of a wood owned by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and threatened, if moved, to go to some other wood owned by him, he was entitled to an injunction to restrain such trespass, but not to an order for possession in respect of those other woods. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 7:27 am
Regina (Horvath) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Case C-428/07 Court of Justice of the European Communities “EC member states were entitled to make direct payments to farmers in the context of the Community Common Agricultural Policy subject to the farmers' not obstructing public rights of way over their land, if certain conditions were [...] [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 3:37 am
Adedoyin v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2012] EWCA civ 939; [2012] WLR (D) 206 “Where the Upper Tribunal had properly directed itself as to its approach on an appeal from a determination of the First–tier Tribunal and had arrived at a conclusion which was open to it, the decision of the Upper Tribunal contained no material error of law and so the Court of Appeal should not allow an appeal from that decision, even if… [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 3:18 am
Courts cannot judge specialist policy Regina (Legal Remedy UK Ltd) v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 12:00 pm
In the case of State of Florida v Jarrod Adkins, a five justice majority concluded that, “Given the broad authority of the legislative branch to define elements of crimes, the requirements of due process ordinarily do not preclude the creation of offenses which lack a guilty knowledge element. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 8:23 am
In State v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 8:46 am
The defendant’s merits brief in United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 9:02 am
The post US Supreme Court finds federal labor law does not automatically preempt state law claims appeared first on JURIST - News. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 2:49 am
Kermit Roosevelt III (University of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond v. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 11:38 am
These are the latest developments from the State Farm v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 7:33 am
Washington—and the per curiam opinion in Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:12 pm
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 12:30 pm
On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments inUnited States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 9:15 am
United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 6:08 am
United States: Federal Plenary Power, the Spheres of Government, and the Constitutionality of S.B. 1070" Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 1, 2012 PATRICK J. [read post]
28 Dec 2005, 2:14 pm
Kroske v. [read post]
11 May 2009, 3:07 am
Regina (JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Court of Appeal “In order to establish that an asylum seeker was liable for a joint criminal enterprise such as to exclude him from the protection of the Geneva Convention as complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity, there had to have been a [...] [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 5:07 am
Regina (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Court of Appeal “It was for the court to determine whether a government claim of serious damage to national security required parts of the reasons in its judgment should be left out. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 2:25 am
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Another Court of Appeal “A person who was a majority shareholder and director of a company could also be an employee of that company under a contract of employment, even if he had total control of the company. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
In Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd, where the loss arose because there were no generic equivalents of the invalidly-patented drug, the Supreme Court held that the "dealing requirement" laid down in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, which states that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, is a necessary element of the tort. [read post]
