Search for: "Baker v. Brown*" Results 121 - 140 of 323
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm by NL
'Due regard' under s.71 Race Relations Act meant appropriate in the circumstances ( Baker v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141), including the countervailing factors. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm by NL
'Due regard' under s.71 Race Relations Act meant appropriate in the circumstances ( Baker v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141), including the countervailing factors. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 7:04 am by Eugene Volokh
(Image used with permission) I’m pleased to report that my Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic student Ashley Phillips and I just filed an amicus brief last week on behalf of the Cato Institute, in Baker v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 12:04 pm by William A. Ruskin
In particular, the amici emphasize the application of the “political question” doctrine, and focus in on the second test stated in Baker v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 3:47 pm
CAAF's new opinion in United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
Rulings               IPSO has published a series of rulings and a Resolution Statement from the Complaints Committee: Resolution Statement 00920-18 Hallam-Baker v Daily Mail – Resolved via IPSO mediation involving Principles 1 Accuracy, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock and 6 Children 00014-18 Temple v Witney Gazette – No breach of Principle 1 Accuracy after investigation 20563-17 Versi… [read post]
11 Aug 2012, 1:11 pm by Dale Carpenter
He first concluded that the whole constitutional question of same-sex marriage was actually decided in 1971 by the Supreme Court in a memorandum opinion in Baker v. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 4:36 pm by NL
Lewisham relied on Simon Brown J (as he was) in R v. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 4:36 pm by NL
Lewisham relied on Simon Brown J (as he was) in R v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by INFORRM
The balance between privacy and transparency in regard to disclosing MPs’ expenses was comprehensively settled by the High Court in 2008, following a trilogy of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeals in the then Information Tribunal: Leapman [pdf], Baker [pdf] and Moffat [pdf]. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 7:39 am by Steve Hall
On Friday, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in Hobbs v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 4:22 am
It's McCambridge Limited v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2014] IEHC 269, a recent High Court (Commercial Division) ruling of the thoughtful and erudite Mr Justice Charleton dating back to 27 May. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 4:16 am by Lev Sugarman
Pildes unpacked the implications of the 1983 INS v. [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 6:42 am by Quinta Jurecic
And April Doss defended the 9th Circuit’s reading of the government’s ability to use information collected through 702 surveillance in U.S. v. [read post]