Search for: "State v. Royal" Results 181 - 200 of 1,852
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2017, 1:37 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Royal (Jurisdiction; Reservation Diminishment; Criminal Law)Window Rock Unified School District v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 4:34 am by tracey
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Goodman & Ors v Elwood [2013] EWCA Civ 1103 (04 September 2013) High Court (Administrative Court) Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) (05 September 2013) Gibson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 2481 (Admin) (04 September 2013) High Court (Chancery Division) Torre Asset Funding Ltd & Anor v The… [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 10:55 pm
" Associated Newspapers have stated that they "categorically deny that the duchess's letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 2:16 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
She stated that the Secretary of State did not seriously consider the most cost-effective form which such an inquiry might take or the “bigger picture” in that it was in the public interest to properly inquire about events of this magnitude and the importance of setting the record straight as well as providing truth to the relatives and survivors, Harrison v UK applied. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am by Dave
The procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has, when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 1:54 am
The latest is Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB), a decision rendered last Thursday by the General Court of the European Union in another POLO-related dispute, this time involving a Community trade mark (CTM) application [it seems to this Kat that the word "polo" has the same effect on brand owners as catnip has on cats -- its appeal is irresistible]. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 9:59 pm by Adam Wagner
The Royal College of Nursing & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin) (10 November 2010) – Read judgment The High Court has ruled that a scheme which prohibits people convicted or cautioned for certain crimes from working with children or vulnerable adults breaches human rights law. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 2:41 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Plymouth City Council v G (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1271 (10 November 2010) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB) (10 November 2010) High Court (Administrative Court) Rycroft, R (on the application of) v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain [2010] EWHC 2832 (Admin) (10 November 2010) Royal College of Nursing & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of… [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]: The Belmarsh CaseRichard Clayton9. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 6:10 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals says the individuals do not have qualified immunity from First Amendment liability, which means the case can forge ahead.The case is Royal Crown Day Care, LLC v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 1:27 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361 (15 April 2008) London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison [2008] EWCA Civ 354 (15 April 2008) YB (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 360 (15 April 2008) High Court (Family Division) Nottingham City Council v G & Ors [2008] EWHC 540 (Fam) (18 March 2008) High Court (Administrative Court) Office of Government Commerce v… [read post]
Royal Dutch Shell, manages to raise an even broader question: Are there any substantive limits to the federal government’s power to regulate matters occurring outside and having nothing do with the United States? [read post]