Search for: "Turner v. State"
Results 541 - 560
of 1,314
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am
He applied his Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England, which purported to apply the House of Lords judgment in R v Barnet LBC, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Turner J’s judgment in R v Waltham Forest, ex parte Vale The Times, 25 February 1985. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 12:00 pm
Facts: This case (Gebremedhin et al v. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 9:22 am
The Ninth Circuit has handed down United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 9:05 am
Under Turner v. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
Huff v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 11:52 am
Cooper v. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 6:25 am
Huff v. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 8:41 am
Virginia, and a fundamental right and “constitutionally protected … relationship” in Turner v. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 6:20 am
V for victory sign introduced. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 9:00 pm
Consistently with its reasoning in Gasser (Case C-116/02) and Turner v Grovit (Case C-259/02), the Court held in West Tankers that “even though proceedings [to enforce an arbitration agreement via an anti-suit injunction] do not come within the scope of [the Brussels I Regulation], they may nevertheless have consequences which undermine its effectiveness”, if they “prevent a court of another Member State from exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by… [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 2:36 pm
Turner, supra. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 12:44 pm
Justice Ginsburg is up next with Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 11:32 am
In Turner v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 7:40 am
Redhail, its 1978 opinion holding the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying; and Turner v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:08 pm
Redhail, and Turner v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 1:27 pm
Redhail from 1978, and Turner v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 7:03 am
Baker v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 6:39 am
Noting that the employee voiced his grievances internally, at union meetings, to his supervisor, and to human resources, the appeals court found he was primarily concerned about his own professional advancement and his dissatisfaction with his own status as a temporary employee (Turner v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 7:38 am
Dyer v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 4:31 pm
(d) The judge was wrong to reject MGN’s submission that damages for breach of privacy are compensation for injured feelings and are not intended to mark wrongdoing, such damages being vindicatory in effect and therefore contrary to the principles stated inLumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
