Search for: "Will v. United States" Results 1241 - 1260 of 94,037
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Dec 2008, 10:23 am
For example, the decision states that a district court does not have the power to suspend a sentence, citing United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 2:14 am
Regina (A) v Secretary of State for Health Court of Appeal “A failed asylum seeker was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom so as to be entitled to free treatment by the National Health Service. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 2:21 am
R (Abdullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] WLR (D) 185 “Directions for the removal of a person who had no right to remain in the United Kingdom following the dismissal of his claim for asylum were not suspended by virtue of s 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and [...] [read post]
26 May 2009, 2:59 am
Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25; [2009] WLR (D) 162 “The version of the immigration rules which was applicable to the determination of an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom was the one in force at the time the application came to be determined rather [...] [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 2:34 am
Hussain (Zakir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Court of Appeal “Evasion of immigration controls for a long time was not in itself a reason for deciding that an applicant, unlawfully in the United Kingdom, should not be allowed to stay. [read post]
19 May 2008, 3:11 am
Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, insisting that the statute is unconstitutional under the Court's precedents, New York v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 2:57 pm by Kathryn Briuglio
On February 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court made its first ruling in a maritime case in nearly 70 years. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 2:38 pm by constitutional lawblogger
The first of the two closely-watched same sex marriage cases to be argued before the United States this morning prompted much tweeting and predictions, as well as the promised early release of the audio by the Supreme Court itself. [read post]