Search for: "HUGHES v. STATE"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,778
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
The right to a disciplinary hearing may survive the individual’s resignation or retirement from the position Hughes v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and of the Inforrm Committee. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 8:48 am
And at the “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog,” Steinman has a related post titled “Hughes v. [read post]
29 Nov 2019, 8:52 am
The court addresses this in Baker Hughes, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 11:40 am
United States 17-5165 Issue: Whether Richardson v. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 1:05 pm
” In a finding that may come as a surprise to mothers everywhere, Judge Hughes states in his Feb. 2, 2012 decision in EEOC v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 6:29 pm
Randall Hodgkinson won in State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 10:15 am
Feb. 22, 2019) (Before Prost, C.J., Wallach, Hughes, J.) [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 1:52 pm
Delaware Chancellor Allen's decision in Mendel v. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 2:17 am
The Supreme Court by a majority of 4 to 1 (Lord Hughes dissenting) dismissed MM’s appeal. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 6:03 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 12:24 pm
Next Wednesday, February 24, the Justices will once again examine the regulatory realms of national and state officials, in the combined cases of Hughes v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 4:00 am
In Hughes v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and of the Inforrm Committee. [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 4:43 pm
So when he announced in the New Haven Register that the case of State v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 9:30 pm
Some time ago, I reported on Crowell v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 8:33 am
The case is U.S. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 1:17 am
On 1 November 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKSC 72, relating to whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance (‘JSA’), the State unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 12:07 am
Whilst the courts were slow to interfere in the executive’s assessment of whether there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation in the Belmarsh case (A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68), and accorded the Secretary of State’s assessment “great weight”, it did actually perform a review of that assessment, albeit granting the executive a wide discretionary area of judgement. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 9:30 pm
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Patel v. [read post]
