Search for: "Housing Authority v. Superior Court" Results 261 - 280 of 885
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2018, 12:32 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she: … Matters sub judice (g) Refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding, (i) that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination; or (ii) that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of an Act of the Legislature, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and… [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 11:30 am
In 2000, the House of Lords effectively approved these conditions, in the landmark case on the point - Inco Europe v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 2:15 am by 1 Crown Office Row
But in this connection, let us turn to the case of Hirst v United Kingdom No2 (the prisoner voting case). [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 3:51 pm
I generally like the published opinions of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. [read post]
1 May 2013, 4:47 am by Susan Brenner
In doing so, the Court stated that, `a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 1:23 pm by Jonathan Holbrook
After being convicted in district court, the defendant appealed for trial de novo in superior court, and the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of simple assault. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:45 pm by David Kopel
On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in McDonald v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(A135892; nonpublished opinion; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV508656.) [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 11:35 am by Harold O'Grady
Labunski (Call #KF4555.L33 2000) which looks at Article V of the U.S. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 3:08 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
The superior court denied the writ, concluding that the Section 65589.5 findings were not required as project did not meet applicable development standards. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:43 am by stevemehta
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondents; NMS PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest. [read post]