Search for: "Park v. Respondent" Results 1 - 20 of 2,428
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2010, 7:06 pm by FDABlog HPM
" The Park Doctrine has rarely been employed since the 1980’s but its seemingly imminent revival is sure to have corporate executives ill at ease. [read post]
8 Nov 2014, 8:27 pm by Patricia Salkin
Respondent Jason Bonsignore submitted an application to respondent Planning Board of the Town of Dix for site plan approval to reopen and expand the “Seneca Grand Prix Family Fun Park,” which included miniature golf, bumper boats and a go-cart track. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 2:15 am by gmlevine
Authorized dealers, resellers, distributors, consultants and, in Alstom v. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 4:31 pm by Patricia Salkin
Inc v Adirondack Park Agency, 990 N.Y.S. 2d 643 (A.D. 3 Dept. 7/3/2014) The opinion can be accessed at: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2014/516901.html Filed under: Current Caselaw - New York, Standards of Review Tagged: Adirondack Club, Adirondack Park, Adirondack Park Agency, LLC, Tupper Lake Boat Club [read post]
21 Sep 2018, 6:10 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Merits Briefs: Petitioner’s Brief States’ Amicus Brief Respondents’ Brief Alaska Amicus Brief National Parks Conservation Association Amicus Brief Law Professors’ Brief Alaska Native Subsistence Users Amicus Brief Cert Stage Briefs: Cert Petition Alaska Amicus Brief in Support of Cert Petition Federal Brief in Opposition to Cert Cert Stage Reply Lower court materials: Opinion in Sturgeon v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 2:03 am by Marguerite Kenner, Olswang LLP
Background The Respondent owner of Meadowview Mobile Home Park granted a licence to the Appellant, a Mr Telchadder, allowing him to station his mobile home on a pitch within the park. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 3:59 am
Firemen responding to a call of an unresponsive man found defendant passed out at the wheel of a parked car and finally awoke him, also seeing a firearm between his legs. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 12:18 pm by Oliver Gayner, Olswang
  The commercial question for the Supreme Court was to determine who had priority to this collateral: LBSF (the apppellant Lehman Brothers financing vehicle), or the respondent noteholders (i.e the investors in the scheme, who were mostly Australian local authorities and pension funds). [read post]