Search for: "State v. Halford"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2022, 5:27 pm
A Mississippi judge Tuesday blocked a challenge to the state’s abortion ban, shutting down abortion access in the cascading aftermath of the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 6:12 pm
Given this footnote in Halford, that’s one trend I won’t be following. ____________________________________ [1]It was only thirty-six years ago, inGoldfarb v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 6:20 am
Halford, No. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 1:00 am
As the recent (unreported) case of Stephens v Halfords PLC has shown, merely having a policy is not a magic panacea in itself. [read post]
17 Jan 2016, 3:55 am
The cases below were referred to in the Court’s judgment: – Halford v the United Kingdom (25 June 1997), which concerned an office landline designated for personal use. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:41 pm
Firstly, the existing case law on surveillance of private correspondence in the workplace is not adequately tailored to the facts in Bărbulescu: in Halford v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:18 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
In 1997, Strasbourg court was critical of UK interception law in the case of Halford v The United Kingdom (20605/92) [1997] ECHR 32. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 1:36 am
In 1997, Strasbourg court was critical of UK interception law in the case of Halford v The United Kingdom (20605/92) [1997] ECHR 32. [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am
Lloyd relied Halford v. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 5:40 am
The 1972 case of Hanover Insurance Company v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:20 am
The unusual situation of a judge in a civil case deciding whether a party is guilty of murder has arisen before: in Halford v Brookes ([1992] P.I.Q.R. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 4:40 am
Cate decided last Monday and Michael Angelo Morales and Albert Greenwood Brown v. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 8:03 am
In its decision, the ECHR considered and distinguished – but did not overrule – Halford v UK and Copland v UK on various case-specific facts. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
State, Baldwin v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 12:56 pm
Halford, No. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
In order to be non-essential, it must be found not to be essential under both questions.[354] This interpretation is consistent with the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in Halford v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 12:00 am
A recent case (Stephens v Halfords Retail plc, unreported) reminded employers that blind reliance on a social media policy to dismiss a member of staff will not be enough. [read post]
