Search for: "POOLE v POOLE"
Results 221 - 240
of 4,793
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2016, 11:57 am
… On February 23, 2016, in Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Assoc. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 10:50 am
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court and upheld the denial of an area variance for a rear yard setback to an in ground pool, despite prior approvals of rear yard setback variances for in ground pools at other properties. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 5:42 pm
Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 11:21 am
Lousiana (1975), and in Duren v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 6:36 pm
You can strike one African-American juror from the pool. [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 1:51 pm
CN and GN lived with their mother in a Poole Housing Partnership (a Poole BC ALMO?) [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 4:38 am
In Chassereau v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 12:42 am
In deciding Berghuis v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 1:05 pm
In the recent case of Southern Owners Insurance Co. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 8:00 am
The Second Circuit's recent decision in Scottsdale Insurance Company v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 10:07 am
Aqua Shield v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 11:31 am
v=pmzrE0D_obY [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 11:58 am
In Cumbie v. [read post]
25 Dec 2009, 10:42 am
In Matter of King v/ Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals the court upheld the denial of an area variance for a swimming pool finding that there was a rational basis for the decision of the board. [read post]
25 Dec 2009, 10:42 am
In Matter of King v/ Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals the court upheld the denial of an area variance for a swimming pool finding that there was a rational basis for the decision of the board. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:42 am
On June 25, 2014, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a Complaint naming defendants Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.with fraud arising from the operation of a dark pool and other attendant electronic trading practices. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:00 pm
From Curto v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 6:22 am
Having received the state high court’s answers to those questions, the Second Circuit determined that, because shift supervisors did not have a “substantial” degree of “managerial responsibility,” they were akin to general wait staff and entitled to participate in the tip pool (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp, November 21, 2013, per curiam). [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 8:00 am
DeFranko v. [read post]
