Search for: "WRIGHT v. STATE" Results 1601 - 1620 of 2,097
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2010, 1:59 am by INFORRM
” The judge clearly had regard to Ms Ntuli’s stated motives for wanting to sell her story (see, for example, paragraph 32 of his judgment). [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 7:19 am
This approach still appears to be viable in Wisconsin and Mississippi, see Citizens State Bank v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 9:59 pm by Adam Wagner
The cornerstone of the Claimants’ case was the decision of the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) in R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health & Another, in which it ruled that the procedure under the Care Standards Act 2000 of allowing the provision listing of care workers onto a similar ‘barred from work’ list as to the present case without their being able to make representations ran contrary to article 6 and article 8 rights. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 9:04 am by Aaron
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/63016-4.pub.doc.pdf State v. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 4:54 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Carol Wright Sales, 18 F.3d 502, 511-12 (7th Cir. 1994) (same); RCA/Ariola Int'l, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 5:21 pm by INFORRM
But as was stated in Re S, there is no presumptive priority between ECHR rights. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 11:24 pm by Rosalind English
In Wright v Wright [1970] 1WLR Oliver LJ recognized that the court must, I think, start from the position that a solemn and freely negotiated bargain by which a party defines her own requirements ought to be adhered to unless some clear and compelling reason, such as, for instance, a drastic change of circumstances, is shown to the contrary. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 3:05 am
[see Wright v Town Board, 160 AD2D 1156; Informal Opinions of the Attorney General, August 23, 1974]. [read post]