Search for: "Free v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 39,065
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 May 2008, 1:33 am
Regina (Smith) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire; Secretary of State for Defence v Same Queen’s Bench Division “The right to life, protected by article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, could extend to members of the Armed Forces, wherever they might be; whether it did so would depend on the circumstances of the particular case. [read post]
13 May 2013, 7:43 am by Luke Rioux
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently decided State of Maine v. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 1:47 pm by marcorandazza
Its State Supreme Court ruled in New Hampshire v. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 4:59 pm by Amy Howe
Free speech and public censure The justices also agreed to hear Houston Community College System v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 2:05 am by sally
The provisions in article 10a of the Regulation and of the amended Regulation making the award of this benefit subject to conditions of residence and presence within the awarding member state were not contrary to the provisions of free movement of persons. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 10:18 pm
Among otter claims, the court rejected the hospital's state and federal free exercise of religion claim. [read post]
28 May 2008, 1:15 am
Regina (G) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust; Regina (N) v Secretary of State for Health; Regina (B) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust Queen’s Bench Divisional Court “Preventing detained mental patients from smoking was not a breach of article 8, right to respect for private and family life, or article 14, prohibiting discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 6:28 pm by snahmod
Introduction Several years ago the United States Supreme Court handed down Garcetti v. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 8:12 am
Joyce v Secretary of State for Health Queen’s Bench Division “Where a care worker challenged a finding of misconduct which had resulted in her being placed by the Secretary of State for Health on a list of those considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, the Care Standards Tribunal was entitled, on appeal, to consider allegations of misconduct not entertained by the secretary of state, provided it acted fairly. [read post]