Search for: "LANGLEY v. US "
Results 1 - 20
of 84
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2024, 1:29 pm
In Stanley v. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 4:16 pm
‘The Lost King’ was found by HHJ Lewis to bear the meaning that (i) the claimant knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public about the University’s role in finding Richard III’s remains and marginalising Langley’s role; and (ii) the claimant was “smug, unduly dismissive and patronising” towards Ms Langley in relation to the project. 5RB summarised the ruling. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 12:55 pm
Sales, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 2:03 pm
Facebook v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 11:58 am
They note that in Becerra v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:49 am
City of Naperville, Illinois, Langley v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 8:09 am
Today, in Reed v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 5:00 am
Reed could have used to discredit Mr. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 4:30 am
The cases triggering the most departure are Daubert v. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 4:37 pm
Stewart, who wrote up the agreement using a self-counsel precedent. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:15 am
The case, Langley v. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 8:39 pm
The BC court in Yates v Langley Motor Sport Centre Ltd. is the only one of these decisions that engaged directly with the statutory provisions, and concluded that CERB should be deducted based on a review of s. 6(1)(b) of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 9:07 am
” This allegedly caused historic posts to be bylined as “Tito and Tita Langley” rather than “La Baguette. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 12:49 pm
Pan 4 America, LLC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am
To give one example, consider Doe v. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 11:08 am
The FTT dismissed that application on the basis that i) forfeiture was not the only purpose for an application for determination of breach of lease, and ii) the FTT did not have jurisdiction to determine whether waiver had taken place (distinguishing Swanston Grange (Luton) Management Ltd v Langley-Essen (2008) L & TR 20 and Stemp v Ladbroke Gardens Management Ltd (2018) UKUT 375 (LC)). [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 11:08 am
The FTT dismissed that application on the basis that i) forfeiture was not the only purpose for an application for determination of breach of lease, and ii) the FTT did not have jurisdiction to determine whether waiver had taken place (distinguishing Swanston Grange (Luton) Management Ltd v Langley-Essen (2008) L & TR 20 and Stemp v Ladbroke Gardens Management Ltd (2018) UKUT 375 (LC)). [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 9:31 am
Madison (1802), Plessy v Ferguson (1872), and Furman v. [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 9:31 am
In Thomasson v. [read post]
