Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 1061 - 1080
of 6,129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2018, 5:52 pm
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, et al, 585 US__(2018) (En adelante Janus). [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 2:28 pm
CAAF today affirmed the Coast Guard Court's ruling in United States v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 9:29 am
State v. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 10:09 am
[para 27]. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 4:41 am
See, e.g., Good News Club v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 2:39 pm
Univ. for Women v. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 8:24 am
On the evidential material before him, the officer was clearly entitled to conclude that J's risk of relapse did not make him any more vulnerable than the ordinary homeless person. (3) The court was bound by Johnson v Solihull MBC [2013] H.L.R. 39, and it was not open to argue that the correct comparator had to be the ordinary person in the local authority's district (para.55). [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 5:06 pm
The judgment in Sinkova v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 1:57 pm
” Talbot v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 9:22 pm
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New… [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 9:59 pm
RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1285 (18 November 2010) – Read judgment The Court of Appeal has ruled that asylum seekers cannot be forced to lie about not holding political beliefs when returning to their home country. [read post]
9 May 2021, 7:06 pm
And yet there is ultimately a thoughtlessness here: what may be possible against a small and struggling state (and even that is not clear) may actually backfire when used against a state whose own power and cultural self-confidence as great as that of Europe. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:53 am
As stated in McDougall v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 9:00 am
Nolet, 2010 SCC 24 (CanLII), 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851, at para. 21; Hunter v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 6:10 am
KSR v. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 8:41 am
In the recent case of Dowell v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am
In particular, the “Times” says that the Court of Appeal failed to follow Jameel (para 20a) wrongly held that the inclusion in the article of details of the information being investigated by the police was fatal to the Reynolds defence (para 20c) and misapplied the Reynolds requirement of verification, setting a standard that was too high and wrong in law (para 20(d)). [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am
In particular, the “Times” says that the Court of Appeal failed to follow Jameel (para 20a) wrongly held that the inclusion in the article of details of the information being investigated by the police was fatal to the Reynolds defence (para 20c) and misapplied the Reynolds requirement of verification, setting a standard that was too high and wrong in law (para 20(d)). [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 3:44 am
Banks (see Annexe B, para. 14) one of the arguments before me involved going back a few pages in the text to reflect on whether this was really just about the “gold and diamond deals” (see Annexe B, para. 8) which Mr. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 1:17 pm
The CJEU judgment in A. v. [read post]
