Search for: "House v. House"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 41,216
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2008, 6:56 pm
Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation to amend the False Claims Act, sending the measure along to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 2:18 pm
" Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 8:48 am
But in Davis v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 12:50 pm
Today we are filing this amicus brief on behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Fair Housing Alliance, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. in No. 08-453, Cuomo v. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 7:08 am
Although opponents of disparate impact focus on Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Ricci v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 3:17 pm
The case is Goldscheider v The Royal Operate House Covent Garden Foundation. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
Hurzat v Hounslow LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013 [Not on Bailii yet, Lawtel note]What is the relationship between Housing Act 1996 Part VII and Children Act 2004? [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
Hurzat v Hounslow LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013 [Not on Bailii yet, Lawtel note]What is the relationship between Housing Act 1996 Part VII and Children Act 2004? [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 11:54 am
Below is a picture of the house, located at 201 Featherton Street. 201 Featherton Street, City of Cleburne v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 4:10 pm
The Supreme Court decided an emergency entry case today Michigan v. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 9:50 pm
CRIMSON TRACE CORPORATION v. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 12:39 pm
But sooner or later, the councils (and housing associations) will have to bite the bullet and either make a repayment to tenants, like Southwark, or take a case to the High Court or Court of Appeal to seek to overturn or distinguish Jones v Southwark. [read post]
10 May 2009, 8:37 am
V’s friend is renting a house from his parents, who have bought a home [...] [read post]
8 May 2023, 12:28 pm
Jaberi, R (On the Application Of) v City of Westminster (Re Housing Act 1996) (2023) EWHC 1045 (Admin) A judicial review on three grounds: i) Breach of section 193(2) Housing Act 1996 duty to secure suitable accommodation; ii) The Westminster’s allocation policy was unlawful in that it denied the applicant medical need priority reasonable preference, restricting him to homeless reasonable preference; and iii) Breach of the duty under section 166A(9)(a)(ii)… [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 5:43 pm
(Eugene Volokh) Fair Housing Council v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 1:51 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2010, 9:03 pm
State v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:40 am
The case is State v. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 9:01 pm
In 2000, the Supreme Court decided Mitchell v. [read post]
26 Sep 2008, 11:05 am
Oregon Court of Appeals opinion:SOLLARS v. [read post]
