Search for: "Collins v. Department of Human Services" Results 81 - 100 of 115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2013, 11:16 am by Ritika Singh
Interestingly, the Volokh Conspiracy notes that the New York Supreme Court held today in Bezio v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:29 pm by Matthew Flinn
AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 – Read Judgment The Court of Appeal has upheld a challenge to a control order on the basis that the person subject to the order (‘the controllee’) had not been given sufficient information about the case against him. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
There are two appeals in the Supreme Court beginning with Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company to be heard on Monday 18 to Wednesday 20 July 2011 by Lords Hope, Walker, Neuberger, Collins and Clarke. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 11:27 am by Blog Editorial
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 8 – 9 June 2011. [read post]
18 May 2011, 5:36 am by Susan Brenner
State, 2011 WL 1663040 (Texas Court of Appeals 2011), and this is how it arose: [John Preston Creech] taught human sexuality at Collin County Community College (CCCC). [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:17 am by INFORRM
Ward LJ also drew support from the Supreme Court’s judgment in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
In DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 Lord Bingham said: Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm by Matthew Flinn
In DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 Lord Bingham said: Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. [read post]