Search for: "Hatfield v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 123
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2010, 4:15 am by Broc Romanek
" In this order, the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia found that - in AFLAC v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 3:29 pm
Comment As well as the view on Doherty, which is broadly in line with the limiting decisions in Doran, Central Bedfordshire v Taylor and McGlynn v Hatfield, and also follows the suggestion that period of occupation is the key ‘personal circumstance’, there is an important issue here on evidence of failure to take into account relevant considerations. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm by Blog Editorial
Judgments outstanding The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: R (SK) (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 10-11 Feb 2010 JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and another v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des Oeffentlichen Rechts, heard 11 November 2010 WL Congo 1 and 2 & anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department and KM (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard… [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1352-53 (Cal. 1996); Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass’n v. [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 1:38 pm by Julia Malleck
Department of Justice officially dismissed their appeal of case Whistleblower 21276-13W and 21277-13W v. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 4:30 am by Steve McConnell
  The Ninth Circuit’s ‘black-letter’ test for equitable tolling was announced in Hatfield v. [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 7:03 am by SW
To compare this judgment with such a case, you might like to have a look at Nearly Legal’s article on R(Bukartyk) v Welwyn Hatfield BC (2019) EWHC 3480 (Admin). [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 12:42 am by Michael
” Giving judgment in Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Beesley [2010] EWCA Civ 26, Mummery LJ said Beesley told the council he proposed to build a new hay barn on the land, that no change of use was required and provision for sewage disposal was not needed. [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 12:00 pm
Without preemption, however, state juries are asked to do just that. [read post]