Search for: "State v. Borough"
Results 961 - 980
of 1,317
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2018, 1:00 am
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 1:00 am
The second judgment to be handed down is R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) v Hackney London Borough Council and Anr . [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope quotes himself in R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8, where the issue was argued, as saying 'it could be asserted with reasonable confidence that the local authority's duty, which is to provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of the factors mentioned in that subsection, did not give rise to a civil right'. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope quotes himself in R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8, where the issue was argued, as saying 'it could be asserted with reasonable confidence that the local authority's duty, which is to provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of the factors mentioned in that subsection, did not give rise to a civil right'. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 12:50 am
MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 1:45 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 9:47 am
That proposition was effectively trumped by Terry Gallivan, Counsel for Islington, who relied on the contrary proposition in Akinbolu v Hackney LBC (1997) 29 HLR 259, 269 as well as that old chestnut R v Sec of State for the Environment ex p Tower Hamlets LBC [1993] QB 632, 643, neither of which had been cited to Collins J. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 9:47 am
That proposition was effectively trumped by Terry Gallivan, Counsel for Islington, who relied on the contrary proposition in Akinbolu v Hackney LBC (1997) 29 HLR 259, 269 as well as that old chestnut R v Sec of State for the Environment ex p Tower Hamlets LBC [1993] QB 632, 643, neither of which had been cited to Collins J. [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 4:05 pm
” Rulings IPSO has published two resolution statements and series of rulings from the Complaints Committee: Resolution Statement 02597-18 Stewart v express.co.uk, resolved directly with publication Resolution Statement 02287-18 Jolley v Daily Record, resolved via IPSO mediation 19325-17 A woman v Dover Express, no breach after investigation 02514-18 Rochdale Borough Council v Rochdale Online, no breach after investigation 02623-18 Templeman… [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 6:15 pm
Nazareth Borough, 430 Pa. 255, 266-67 (Pa. 1968). [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:28 am
Y, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2011] EWHC 1477 (Admin) (15 June 2011): Hillingdon Borough Council got age assessment wrong, decision quashed by high court. [read post]
20 May 2009, 4:28 pm
The Secretary of State’s submissions were clear as to the result. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 1:47 am
Amoena (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 7 June 2016 Bailey & Anor v Angove’s PTY Ltd, heard 8 June 2016 R v Golds, heard on 14 June 2016 FirstGroup plc v Paulley, heard on 15 June 2016 Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc, heard on 16 June 2016 Secretary of State for the Home Department v FV (Italy), heard on 21 June Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners plc,… [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 9:49 am
” Borough of Glassboro v. [read post]
Personnel services company pays $9.9 million to settle False Claims Act case for underpaid Visa Fees
10 Jul 2023, 7:13 am
Boroughs. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 9:28 am
V. [read post]
St. Francis Health System, Inc. pays $36.5 million to settle False Claims Act and Anti-kickback case
16 Jun 2023, 8:32 am
Lee v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 6:48 pm
In the first appellate decision to touch on the TDRA, Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm
Judgments outstanding The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: R (SK) (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 10-11 Feb 2010 JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and another v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des Oeffentlichen Rechts, heard 11 November 2010 WL Congo 1 and 2 & anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department and KM (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard… [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
ECtHR jurisprudence made clear that the state was not required to tolerate unlawful occupation Hoire v UK, Yordanova v Bulgari [read post]
