Search for: "People v. House" Results 2041 - 2060 of 11,169
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2011, 2:11 pm by NL
Akhtar v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 383 [not on bailii yet, we've seen a transcript] When a Local Authority accepts the applicant’s case on a review under s.202 review under Housing Act 1996, is there or should there be a duty to give reasons why the applicant was successful and on what objections they were not successful? [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 5:41 am by INFORRM
On Wednesday 7 March 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard the application in the Article 10 case of Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom. [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 6:51 am
This summary of facts from a recent case - United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Max Masuda-Farkas
” In its place, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity published a final rule limiting federal oversight of local housing programs. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 4:30 am by Darryl Hutcheson, Matrix
This important decision provides much-needed clarification on how “vulnerability” is to be determined both by housing officers and by courts. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 10:16 am by Courtney Finerty-Stelzner
On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:42 am by Kent Scheidegger
A narrowly divided Supreme Court today upheld the massive prisoner release order in Brown v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 11:18 am by Neil H. Buchanan
These questions are motivated, of course, by the right-wing freakout regarding the search by federal agents of Donald Trump's house to look for documents that he had illegally taken with him from the White House. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:11 am by Dale Carpenter
And of course they will not get a free-speech exemption from employing, insuring, housing, medically treating, or serving any particular class of people. 303 Creative reaffirms the cardinal rule that the First Amendment does not shield these acts of status-based discrimination. [read post]