Search for: "Kerr v. State"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 1,523
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2024, 11:38 am
On 21 May 2024, judgment was handed down in R (On the application of National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181 (Admin). [read post]
6 May 2007, 7:30 pm
Professor Kerr. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 9:28 am
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of G) v The Governors of School X probably not if you’re a teacher in a state school. [read post]
28 May 2015, 5:08 am
,Alston v. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 11:43 am
” Old-school CFAA nerds might recall that this fact pattern largely harks back to the criminal prosecution of United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:07 am
See United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 7:23 am
Ohio when they decide Herring v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 3:32 am
Court, 407 U.S. at 313; United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 4:08 am
He lost, after the majority held that they’re bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Babbitt v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
The state of the law makes that difficult today. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 8:32 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 12:30 pm
So writes The Onion in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up Novak v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 9:50 am
More secret justice on the horizon Angus McCullough QC special advocate for Russian cleared of spying in deportation case Secret evidence v open justice: the current state of play [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 3:57 am
The book also offers a reading of Lawrence v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 4:09 am
The theory of Smith [v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:16 am
See United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 12:02 pm
Kerr; 2001 IN Jury Verdicts Rptr. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:52 am
Evening Standard editor George Osborne has criticised the proposed Data Protection Bill stating that cost amendment provisions shifting Claimants’ legal costs to papers would be unduly onerous. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 7:06 am
Kerr, held that a property owner stated a cause of action for an uncompensated inverse taking against a county and a flood control district where new development was approved without addressing increased runoff resulting from the development. [read post]
