Search for: "Hughes v. State"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 1,956
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2014, 9:02 pm
In Cruzan v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 4:02 pm
“Transaction costs, privacy, and trust: The laudable goals and ultimate failure of notice and choice to respect privacy online”, Kirsten Martin, First Monday, Next week in the courts On 22 and 23 January 2014, the Supreme Court (Lady Hale and Lords Wilson, Reed, Hughes and Hodge) will hear the case of Secretary of State for Home Department v A. [read post]
12 Jan 2014, 11:53 am
V. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:02 am
EFF cited a 6th Circuit case, US v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 3:00 am
The Progressive Origins of Conservative Hostility to Lochner v. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
At the time this decision was rendered, the court was applying Askey v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 4:29 am
My first involvement in litigation centered on this question was in a case called Pearson v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 1:52 am
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, R (Heathrow Hub Limited & Anor) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, and R (Buckinghamshire County Council & Ors) v The Secretary of State for Transport, heard 15 – 16 October 2013. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Causation in Burrage v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 4:43 pm
Consumer Watchdog v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
United States. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 2:20 am
The Court stated that its judgment does not favour sexual orientation over religious belief – had the respondents refused rooms to the appellants because of their Christian beliefs, the appellants would have been equally protected by the prohibition of discrimination. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 2:20 am
The Court stated that its judgment does not favour sexual orientation over religious belief – had the respondents refused rooms to the appellants because of their Christian beliefs, the appellants would have been equally protected by the prohibition of discrimination. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 12:09 pm
By John G. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 8:47 am
The court noted that the issue was a novel one - whether there are limits to the increases a state can make to the severity of punishments for possessing weapons - but chose not to address it beyond saying that without strict scrutiny, the defendant could not prevail, and this was an intermediate scrutiny issue.People v Hughes is important because the Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division decision that defendant's purported CPL 330 motion was sufficient to… [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
16 Nov 2013, 4:35 pm
Banner v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court case of Automobile Workers v. [read post]
