Search for: "State v. Carl"
Results 981 - 1000
of 1,323
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2011, 12:31 am
Second, the Supreme Court will in the near future decide a case on the subject of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the case of R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 4:00 am
All rights reserved by Carl C. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:22 am
Carl Gardner, of the Head of Legal blog, also provides an excellent post here. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 8:21 am
Campbell, JudgeRepresenting Appellant (Plaintiff): Carl S. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 9:25 am
Back at the end of 2009 we reported the Supreme Court case of Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and another, which upheld the use of a quia timet injunction – a prospective possession order – against a group of new travellers, preventing them from occupying any land owned by the Forestry Commission in the area. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 11:00 pm
Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) (11 February 2011) Coalition cancellation of school-building program was unlawful. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 7:32 am
And the even bigger question in the 9th District’s decision in State v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm
See today’s In the courts Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) (11 February 2011): Coalition cancellation of school-building program was unlawful. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 12:00 pm
Lemley, Stanford Law School; Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org; John Mayer, Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction; Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media; Stuart Sierra, Columbia Law School; Erika V. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 12:00 pm
Lemley, Stanford Law School; Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org; John Mayer, Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction; Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media; Stuart Sierra, Columbia Law School; Erika V. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 6:19 am
But as an idea it is surely valid, as it works on precisely the federalist, greater than the sum of its parts logic which informs many of the successful modern states and institutions, including the USA, the UN and the EU. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 7:45 am
More on the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Penry v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 1:31 am
., Hamdan v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 8:54 pm
Last week, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a request for discretionary review in People v. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 11:48 am
Carl Folsom won in State v. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 2:16 pm
Carl Gardner, author of the Head of legal blog, has this analysis of this week’s case célèbre (sic): Employment Tribunal ruling: O’Reilly v BBC and Adam Wagner of 1 Crown Office Row, writing on their UK Human Rights blog, stated…Still almost impossible to sue the police in negligence Desmond v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police 2011] EWCA Civ 3 (12 January 2011)- Read judgment The Court of Appeal has ruled… [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
United States, 642 F. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 5:38 am
On one level, the Bates v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 10:02 am
It is interesting that at the ECHR the state appeared to represent that defeat as evidence of an anti-abortion majority in the state, particularly when only some 42% of the population turned out to vote. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
