Search for: "HUGHES v. STATE"
Results 161 - 180
of 1,813
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2023, 3:19 am
The trade limb of Article VI states “[His] Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall … be on the same footing … in respect of trade”. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 1:21 am
The majority, however, buries Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1989] AC 53 – whose public policy justifications have been inverted. [read post]
22 May 2015, 4:00 am
The defendant relied on the judgment of Lord Dyson in the Supreme Court case of R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] 1 AC 245 [101]), in which he disapproved the concept of “vindicatory damages”. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:00 am
The appeal was heard by Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson on 18 and 19 March 2015. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 12:08 pm
Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, disagreed: I agree with the government that Mallinckrodt was wrong when decided, and in any event cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 9:38 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 9:22 am
In the case, Hughes v. [read post]
15 Nov 2021, 8:05 am
Sandford, Plessy v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:52 am
As part of the appellant’s application to work as a teacher, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) issued an ECRC. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 7:38 am
That was a threshold condition, and not question of discretion, R (Omar) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] QB 112 [30]. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 9:30 pm
Dagenhart, United States v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 1:10 pm
” The court also cited Stonite Products Co. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:57 am
Vicky Crawford, who testified in her employer's internal investigation of a sexual harassment charge is protected against retaliation under a federal civil rights law, the Supreme Court ruled in Crawford v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 6:23 am
Bryan Hughes and state Senators Juan Hinojosa and Craig Estes that nearly passed as an amendment. [read post]
10 May 2011, 3:55 am
The Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights today gave judgment in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom (Judgment of 10 May 2011). [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:47 pm
Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 8:31 pm
Visual Memory v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 11:04 am
Supreme Court released an opinion in Crawford v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:13 am
If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.] [read post]
