Search for: "R v. M"
Results 1 - 20
of 20,681
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Sep 2008, 8:25 am
R v M; [2008] WLR (D) 297 “Where a defendant in criminal proceedings was said to have breached a restraint order, imposed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by making certain prohibited transactions a judge of the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try an application made by the prosecution for the defendant to be committed for contempt. [read post]
17 May 2007, 4:50 am
M; Regina v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 2:41 am
R (M) v East Sussex County Council; [2009] WLR(D) 141 “The failure by a local education authority to amend a child's statement of special educational needs during the year of the child's transfer between phases of schooling, and to name and specify the type of school, was a breach of its obligations under s 324 of [...] [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 8:36 am
R (M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52; [2008] WLR (D) 292 “A person's need for a refrigerator in which to keep medication did not amount to "need of care and attention" within s 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (as amended) so as to entitle him to residential accommodation. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 1:46 am
R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council; R (M) vLambeth London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8; [2009] WLR (D) 342 "Where an asylum seeker’s claim to be under the age of 18 (and so entitled to accommodation under s 20(1) of the Children Act 1989) was disputed by the local authority who would have to provide [...] [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 1:47 am
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2008] UKHL 14; WLR (D) 64 “A child who had been provided with accommodation by the housing department of a local authority but had not been brought to the attention of their children's services department had not been ‘looked after’ under s 22(1) of the Children Act 1989 and was accordingly not entitled, having reached 18, to support under the Act as a ‘former relevant… [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 5:45 am
CARRIE M. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 5:37 am
Landmark cases such as R. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 7:42 am
PEARSON, Individually and as an agent of M+R STRATEGIC SERVICES, Defendants and Appellees. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 7:42 am
Additional Resources:Stacy M. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 1:42 pm
Failure to do may result in a situation similar to what plaintiff in Stacy M. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 2:28 pm
JAMES R. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 8:37 am
CHARLES R. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 12:32 pm
WOLFF v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:30 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 1:58 pm
CANYON VIEW FARMS, INC., WILLIAM R. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:30 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 11:47 am
Speculationabout what R+L was attempting to accomplish vis-à-visthe N&M reference does not change our view.Under the statute and our prior case law, it is irrelevantwhy an amended claim is narrowed during reexamination,or even whether the patentee intended to narrowthe claim in a particular way. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 1:16 pm
DRODZ, KRISTINE M. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 6:46 am
The case you are thinking of is M v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2008] UKHL 14, [2008] 1 WLR 535. [read post]
