Search for: "Hale v. Hale"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 1,470
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2011, 10:19 am
It will be heard on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 February 2011 by Lords Phillips, Rodger and Walker, Lady Hale and Lords Brown, Mance and Clarke. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
A 1954 California case called Hale v. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 1:16 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 10:02 am
The judgments of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC and Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC are expressed in terms which appear sanguine about this - see for example Baroness Hale at paragraph 33 and Lord Hope at paragraph 54. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 10:02 am
The judgments of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC and Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC are expressed in terms which appear sanguine about this - see for example Baroness Hale at paragraph 33 and Lord Hope at paragraph 54. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm
Moreover, he rejected Baroness Hale’s doubts in a recent House of Lords case that consent could truly be act specific. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 5:32 am
Indeed Lady Hale even says that the equivalent of factor (vi) for a spouse is whether family life was established knowing of the precariousness of the immigration situation. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:53 am
OMH, Lambert claimed, (1) found her to be her eligible for FMLA benefits on February 1995 but (2) terminated her in March 1995.The court never reached the merits of Lambert’s allegations, holding that [s]ince Lambert’s FMLA claim against the Office of Mental Health is predicated on a request for leave involving her own health condition (in contrast, for example, to a request for leave for the birth of a child), it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.The court cited Hale… [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:29 am
Following her leading judgment in last week’s domestic violence case, for which she has been dubbed the “Brilliant Baroness”, Baroness Hale has delivered another wide-ranging, principled judgment which will bring immigration courts into line with current thinking on child welfare and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family life). [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Baroness Hale made clear that the question for the local authority (following on from Birmingham CC v Ali – our note here) is essentially about the future, ie the probability of the acts continuing in the future (“This is the limiting factor. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:24 am
Although the judgement, given by Baroness Hale, did not mention human rights, it clearly impacts on article 8 rights to family life, and alongside the recent decision in Pinnock, could greatly increase the number of people to which local authorities are obliged to provide housing. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 4:18 am
On Monday and Tuesday 17 to 18 January 2011 Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, and Lords Mance, Collins and Clarke will hear Duncombe and others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 5:06 pm
U.S. (09-1298) and Boeing v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Summers v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:10 pm
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ECtHR has upheld the conclusion of the HoL (Baroness Hale dissenting in part) that no violation of the A2P1 right to education occurred. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 5:22 am
McIntyre Machinery v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 1:21 pm
State v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:06 am
Goodyear v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:44 pm
On this issue, R (Mani) v the London Borough of Lambeth [2003] EWCA Civ 836 amounted to a reformulation of the test in Westminster v NASS. [read post]
