Search for: "State v. S. R. R."
Results 1441 - 1460
of 71,790
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2011, 5:26 am
R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) (FC) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 28, 22/6/2011 – read judgment; press summary here Unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal are still subject to judicial review by the High… [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm
Reilly, 2021 SCC 38, at para. 3; see also R. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 4:01 am
At the end of yesterday's hearing in Tafas/SmithKlineBeecham v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:36 am
R (Peat and others) v Hyndburn DC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin) is the first successful challenge to a selective licensing scheme. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:36 am
R (Peat and others) v Hyndburn DC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin) is the first successful challenge to a selective licensing scheme. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:12 am
” And as Lord Bingham went on to note in R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary, the essence of breach of the peace in Howell “was to be found in violence or threatened violence”. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 12:14 am
Here's a striking exchange between Justice Scalia and James R. [read post]
21 May 2010, 7:20 am
State v. [read post]
15 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
But the key question was the applicability of R v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC, ex p. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 6:39 pm
Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 12:57 pm
In Design Basics, LLC. v. [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]
24 Jun 2016, 5:01 am
R. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 4:27 am
The central question is whether HMPO’s policy breaches the UK’s obligations under the Convention. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
John Fund, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 3:09 am
The Court rejected the Secretary of State’s submission the source of concessionary policies was an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and found the source of concessionary policies to be the 1971 Act. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:38 am
For judgment, please download: [2015] UKSC 16 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
R. [read post]
