Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 6,154
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2009, 5:00 am
The Delhi High Court has read down s. 377 to exclude consensual sex between adults in private in its judgment in Naz Foundation v. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:00 pm
The Supreme Court ultimately favoured the criteria in the Discovery Enterprises judgment (Para 110), where it was stated:“40. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 5:31 am
The principle of a MIR per se is not objectionable as the Court states (see Konstantinov v Netherlands cited at para. 84) but the impact of the new threshold is surely a relevant consideration in considering compatibility. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 7:42 am
Williamson v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 10:23 pm
But the recent judgment in Case C-158/07 Jacqueline Förster v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 4:40 am
Complaint ¶ 89, Cruz Lopez v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 11:56 pm
The post Case Comment: R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 49 appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
27 Jan 2015, 12:21 pm
”) State v. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 9:37 am
The Supreme Court seemed to go out of its way in American Insurance Association v. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 1:06 am
Where is there a stated useful result? [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:19 am
A few days ago, the Appellants in Cuthbertson v. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 1:20 am
State immunity The Court of Appeal held that the arguments made by the UK “lacked any foundation in law” [para. 49]. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 9:19 pm
State v. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 12:01 pm
vía Yasta.pr El Comité de Finanzas del Senado de EEUU aprobó ayer un proyecto de ley que extiende la vigencia de varias medidas importantes para Puerto Rico, incluyendo la subvención adicional del programa del reembolso del ron, el crédito contributivo para la contratación de veteranos y el beneficio de la Sección 199 que reduce la carga contributiva a las subsidiarias de corporaciones americanas en la isla. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm
To come back to the IPT, it applies the rulings in the judgement by the European Court of Human Right in Weber & Saravia v Germany [2008] and Kennedy v United Kingdom [2011] to solve issues 2 and 3 (Mention is also made of R E v United Kingdom [2016] and Szabo & Vissy v Hungary). [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 4:55 am
Also see R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, at paras 105-106 [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 7:31 am
Id. at ¶;¶ 15-17. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 9:12 am
Supreme Court plurality has ruled (Coleman v Maryland Court of Appeals, Dkt No 11-1754, March 20, 2012 (95 EPD ¶44,452)). [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 11:10 am
[¶] . . . [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 8:58 am
(Emphasis in original) (para. 76) (Justice Sharma reviews the freedom of expression jurisprudence extensively and distinguishes two cases, Walker v. [read post]
