Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2010, 7:49 am
By Jason Rantanen General Protecht Group v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 10:53 am
In Howley v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 12:00 am
Even for an ace, patent litigation is a team sport. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 1:02 am
Like all good news sources (see, for example, here and here), I am bound to report that the decree nisi in the case of The Nation's Sweetheart v Cashley Cole is due to be pronounced in the Principal Registry this morning. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 12:36 pm
Supreme Court held in Gideon v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 10:55 am
In Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Limited (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 Lord Keith stated that “the right to personal privacy is clearly one in which the law in this field should seek to protect. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 4:26 am
Where its employee speaks on matters of public concern, the government bears the burden of justifying any adverse employment action [Rankin v McPherson, 483 US 378].It was undisputed that many federal and state laws require ACS and HRA records, reports, and information relating to specific children or families, be kept confidential. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 6:25 pm
It relied on Toro Co. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 9:18 am
Whittlestone Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 11:22 pm
[Ace; Patterico] [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 4:15 am
See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 am
Ace Hardware Corp. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 3:20 pm
State v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
New York State Depa [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 2:49 am
Harding v Wealands [2007] 1 AC 1, under the pre-existing English rules of applicable law). [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 9:27 am
"United States of America ex rel FLFMC, LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 4:27 am
Consultants, Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
CV. 09-1194-AC). [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
