Search for: "In Re Queen"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 2,978
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2014, 2:12 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a motion for an order to produce the defendant before this Court for the purpose of re-sentencing the said defendant as a third felony offender. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 2:49 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 3:39 am
” “Pride is a sin,” said King Arthur, “and never to be considered in a Christian queen. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 1:50 pm
The record also shows that the man was thereupon re-arraigned and pleads not guilty. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 9:25 am
It is a fact well known to certain Episcopalians—both those who have left the Episcopal Church (USA) and those who have remained—that ECUSA and its dioceses have followed a pattern of suing any church that chooses to leave for another Anglican jurisdiction. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:57 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 1:18 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 10:03 pm
And, every time you move in northern New Jersey, you’re likely to be in a new borough. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 11:02 am
The Nigerian Broadcasting Commission decided to tackle the issue by re-iterating the provisions of Article 3.13.2.2 of the Broadcast code, which broadcast stations were bound to run afoul of in consequence of carrying out the ban. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 9:29 pm
They’re all married (assuming Queen Latifah gets those certificates signed). [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 9:18 am
Meanwhile, if you’re one of those New Jersey passengers whose vacation was cut short, think twice before visiting New York City. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 2:54 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 10:18 am
Therefore, the case will technically be pending for up to one year, but if you stay out of trouble it will be dismissed and sealed (in theory, if you get re-arrested the District Attorney's Office can restore the case). [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 11:45 am
But the case Re Skogman and The Queen (1984), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 161 says that if there is some evidence (a “scintilla” of it) on which the Preliminary Judge draws his or her inference, even if that inference does not seem to be quite enough, it is not “jurisdictional error” available for review on a Certiorari. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 11:45 am
But the case Re Skogman and The Queen (1984), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 161 says that if there is some evidence (a “scintilla” of it) on which the Preliminary Judge draws his or her inference, even if that inference does not seem to be quite enough, it is not “jurisdictional error” available for review on a Certiorari. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 3:17 am
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 1:03 am
Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 11:17 am
(Eugene Volokh) An “intimate partners without benefits” case, from In re Adoption of G., N.Y. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 12:18 am
And, as mentioned in 3), they will likely then be difficult to re-establish.6) This Kat sees in the consultation document little consideration of what the profession requires from the examination system and how better to meet such requirements. [read post]
