Search for: "State v. Kaczmarek"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2008, 10:23 am
Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Court of Appeal “A citizen of a European Union member state who had no right to live in the United Kingdom under domestic or European law, even though she was lawfully present, was not eligible for income support. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 3:22 pm
Once again the issue of an applicant's eligibility for benefits has come before the courts in Sylwia Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1310. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 6:22 am
Summary of Decision issued September 3, 2009Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 9:30 am
v=n83m1ZbclBs&feature=youtu.be Follow @azatty [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 8:00 am
The Court of Appeal was bound by the decisions in Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67; [2008] 1 WLR 2602 and Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1310; [2009] PTSR 897. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 7:11 pm
Of Pettigrew, Charters states: "He never learned the value of magic. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 5:49 pm
Inc., 211 F.R.D. 228 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Kaczmarek v. [read post]
11 Oct 2019, 2:59 am
Colangelo writes about Gamble v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 2:40 am
The Court cites McCarthy v SoS for Home Department and Abdirahman v SoS for Work and Pensions in support, and explained (politely) a comment made by Kay LJ in Kaczmarek v SoS for Work and Pensions (at [23]) as well as R(Badar) v Ealing LBC (irrelevant as right of residence was not contested). [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 2:40 am
The Court cites McCarthy v SoS for Home Department and Abdirahman v SoS for Work and Pensions in support, and explained (politely) a comment made by Kay LJ in Kaczmarek v SoS for Work and Pensions (at [23]) as well as R(Badar) v Ealing LBC (irrelevant as right of residence was not contested). [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 1:01 pm
K.V. v. [read post]
