Search for: "Roach v. Roach" Results 121 - 140 of 269
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2010, 8:27 am by Lawrence Solum
Recently in Roach v Electoral Commissioner (‘Roach’), the High Court considered a challenge to a 2006 amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) that extended the class of disenfranchised prisoners from any person serving a sentence of three years or longer to any person ‘who is serving a sentence of imprisonment’. [read post]
21 May 2008, 4:00 am
Reference will be made in this connection to the strongly divided opinions in the Court in Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 and Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 81 ALJR 1830. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 5:17 am
The record reflects that the computer was infested with roaches upon its return. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 6:55 pm by Kenneth Vercammen
  Roach __ NJ __ (2014)  30 Defendant has burden to timely to object to testimony by pathologist who did not perform the victim’s autopsy State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 5:47 pm
  By way of background, the High Court case was Roach v Electoral Commissioner & Anor, a challenge to the validity of certain provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, specifically those that prohibit sentenced prisoners from voting. [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 10:42 am by Garry J. Wise, Wise Law Office, Toronto
 Here are our leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday October 5, 2012: Lawyer Charles Roach dies with citizenship dream unfulfilled Former jail manager brings wrongful dismissal suit for $4.4M - Ottawa Citizen Supreme Court of Canada - No disclosure of HIV+ status necessary where low viral load and condom use preclude realistic likelihood of transmission - R. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 11:37 am by Venkat Balasubramani
” The email further contained a message from “Anna Kramer” at the above described email address that stated, I’ve named this roach after you. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As the Comptroller's determination — finding that Breslin was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a light-duty assignment — is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Sweeney v DiNapoli, 88 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2011]; Matter of Murray v New York State Comptroller, 84 AD3d 1681, 1682-1683 [2011]; Matter of Pascale v DiNapoli, 84 AD3d at 1680; Matter of Roache v Hevesi, 38 AD3d 1036,… [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
It also prohibited Nix, Patterson & Roach, a law firm in Texas, from dispersing any monies or things of value to Data Treasury or its principals pending further order of the Court. [read post]