Search for: "US v. Barber"
Results 241 - 260
of 299
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2010, 11:17 am
Graham v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 5:11 pm
Barber v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 10:45 am
In Barber v. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 9:12 am
Consider Brogan v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 7:41 am
The homelessness cases were never going to succeed because there was CA authority in the way (Barber and McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield DC [2009] EWCA Civ 285). [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 7:41 am
The homelessness cases were never going to succeed because there was CA authority in the way (Barber and McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield DC [2009] EWCA Civ 285). [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 6:49 am
United States and Barber v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 7:56 am
Check the Barber v. [read post]
27 Mar 2010, 11:20 am
Check the Barber v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 8:12 am
Barber of Phillip D. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:34 am
In particular, the problem of Fry J's well-known five probanda in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96, at 105, which has bedevilled this area in the past, is again at stake here because eg it was not known whether the Defendants' predecessor in title had made a mistake as to his legal rights (probanda 1). [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:34 am
In particular, the problem of Fry J's well-known five probanda in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96, at 105, which has bedevilled this area in the past, is again at stake here because eg it was not known whether the Defendants' predecessor in title had made a mistake as to his legal rights (probanda 1). [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 6:11 am
("Fruehauf") in used condition. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 7:00 am
In Barber v Croydon LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 51, the Court of Appeal found Croydon’s decision to pursue possession proceedings of a non-secure tenancy occupied by Mr Barber Wednesbury unreasonable, being by my estimation the third such successful use of a gateway (b) defence in the higher courts (after Doherty itself and McGlynn). [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:40 pm
The question presented is whether that claim prevails on plain error review so long as there is "any possibility" the defendant was convicted for conduct prior to the statute's adoption, or whether a more stringent standard applies. ------- Title: Barber v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 3:45 am
 It's the State in State v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
 The issue in Barber, et al., v. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 10:21 am
It is not possible to determine from this file whether Smith, Bunch or Barber were paid informants. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 5:38 am
That's at least part of the lesson from the North Carolina Court of Appeals last week in Commercial Credit Group, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 2:35 pm
As we learned from the case of Kreimer v. [read post]
