Search for: "Simms v. Simms"
Results 61 - 80
of 128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2019, 10:27 am
The Native American Agriculture Fund (NAAF) is a charitable trust created by the settlement of the landmark Keepseagle v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 3:18 am
Supreme Court NML Capital Ltd v Argentina [2011] UKSC 31 (6 July 2011) McDonald, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 (6 July 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dalton v Nottinghamshire County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 776 (06 July 2011) AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 787 (06 July 2011) Howell & Ors v Lees- Millais & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 786 (06 July 2011) Garnat… [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 1:18 am
Supreme Court case Atkins v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 7:42 am
") AC31809 - Simms v. [read post]
11 May 2012, 10:28 am
In the unreported case (Topkins v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 1:03 pm
That was the issue argued today before the California Supreme Court, in Howell v. [read post]
19 Feb 2008, 9:03 am
High Court (Chancery Division) Blackburn (t/a Alan Blackburn Sports Ltd) v Revenue and Customs [2008] EWHC 266 (Ch) (19 February 2008) Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch) (19 February 2008) Breakspear & Ors v Ackland & Anor [2008] EWHC 220 (Ch) (19 February 2008) Hopper v Hopper & Ors [2008] EWHC 228 (Ch) (19 February 2008) Ansari v New India Assurance Ltd. [2008] EWHC 243 (Ch) (18 February… [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 8:21 am
See Ahern v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:48 pm
Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377, and Galambos v. [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 4:05 am
Simms v. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 5:45 am
Co. of N.Y. v Simmes, 270 AD2d at 666). [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 7:13 am
Simms (1964), and an Equal Protection challenge to the use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 8:29 am
Simms, 2017 WL 6888499 (C.D. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 9:42 am
At the other end of the spectrum, he compared this case to R v SSHD ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 131 E-F where there was an issue of legality, and government was legislating in a manner that was contrary to fundamental human rights. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Giles v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 5:14 pm
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms [2000] AC 115, 126E-G. [read post]
