Search for: "P. v. Turner"
Results 61 - 80
of 268
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2008, 4:21 pm
Conte and Joseph P. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am
He applied his Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England, which purported to apply the House of Lords judgment in R v Barnet LBC, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Turner J’s judgment in R v Waltham Forest, ex parte Vale The Times, 25 February 1985. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 12:13 pm
And here Justice Scalia’s words, citing U.S. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 9:40 am
See R.A.V. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:58 am
, v USA Cable, 2004 U.S. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
P. 56(c). [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 2:15 pm
Professor Bibas argued Turner v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
Hooker, The Evolution of Singapore's Common Law Fiqh, 1957-2013, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, Article 9, 2016).From SmartCILP and elsewhere:Steven P. [read post]
23 Jul 2011, 8:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 3:04 am
The author refers to the case of Gregory v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 4:44 am
The case is Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:05 am
The Court confronted this directly in Hill v. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 12:34 am
" Turner v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 9:11 pm
Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, ¶ 18, 1 A.3d 445, 454-55 (2010) (holding that voluntariness of consent to search presents an “analogous” issue to voluntariness of a confession and thus, as in Miller, presents a “legal question that we will review de novo”) Turner v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 9:16 am
See Turner v. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 10:40 am
Hence the grant of the licence in August 2018 This evidence was accepted by the UT on the Ladd v Marshall principles. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:00 am
ROCHON, SR., JOHN P. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:00 am
ROCHON, SR., JOHN P. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:55 am
The Supreme Court’s determination that Howard Fensterman’s conduct during the settlement of the New Franklin litigation “was simply a product of his conflict of interest in representing both buyers and sellers in the New Franklin and Fort Tyron transactions” is a premature factual finding inappropriate at this stage of the litigation (see Warney v State of New York, 16 NY3d 428, 436-437; Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 186 AD3d 934,… [read post]
15 Jul 2008, 8:49 am
Turner v. [read post]
