Search for: "House v. State"
Results 2721 - 2740
of 25,351
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2022, 12:49 pm
For example in Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 11:01 pm
The delay question came up in passing in Footnote 3 of United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 6:20 am
In Segelman v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 3:03 am
“State-run retirement plans are the wrong way to protect the poor” [Andrew G. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 4:39 pm
Secretary of State for Defence. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 7:33 am
Plaintiff claimed that the project violated state requirements on affordable housing and on environmental requirements. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 2:10 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2007, 3:17 pm
In City of Woodinville v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 2:25 pm
Recent Developments – United States v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 6:31 am
State v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 5:39 am
On June 18 of this year, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled on the case of Bailey v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 6:46 am
V. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 9:03 pm
State v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 7:32 am
Clearing House, Goddard and his colleagues got new powers to sue banks they believe are responsible for serious fraud against the people of their states. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 10:09 am
Child Poverty Action Group, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] EWCA Civ 1058 This is a benefits case rather than housing per se, but it concerns an important point which will affect many. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 4:00 am
Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals-- the state's highest court-- heard oral arguments in Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc. v McCoy. [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 4:00 am
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 25 in Trump v. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 4:00 am
In New England Prayer Center, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2007, 5:17 am
State v. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 2:02 am
In Sunderland Housing Group v Baines ([2006] EWHC 2359 (QB) however, Eady J held that the defendant’s assertion of an intention to justify needed to be scrutinised more closely, in circumstances where the Court is required to balance an applicant’s Article 8 rights with a defendant’s Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression. [read post]
