Search for: "House v. House" Results 2821 - 2840 of 41,216
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2008, 9:43 am
This one does, and his mole has just reported from the House of Lords that the United Kingdom's highest appeal court has just allowed the appeal in Conor MedSystems v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals and that the patent in dispute has been found valid.Right: in order to penetrate the House of Lords without detection, the IPKat's mole was forced to disguise himself as a Law Lord (nb. you can buy this mole here).Further details will be posted when they're available. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 11:45 pm by DONALD SCARINCI
Facts of Gaffney v Cummings Connecticut’s legislative apportionment plan was deemed unconstitutional because partisan political structuring had resulted in excessive population deviations in the House districting. [read post]
28 May 2007, 3:54 pm
Prompted by Family Lore on Stack v Dowden, this is a much delayed look at relationship breakdown and joint tenancies. [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 2:42 pm by Giles Peaker
As per Williams v Parmar, an award of 100% should be reserved for the most serious cases (at least when section 46 Housing and Planning Act 2016 did not apply). [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 10:58 am by Giles Peaker
Our thanks to the Housing: Recent Developments team in the July/August Legal Action for notes on these two cases. [read post]
12 May 2016, 1:06 pm by J
Eclipse Film Partners v HMRC [2016] UKSC 24 has almost nothing to do with housing law. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:28 am by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch
v=QFZQv06crPEAs you may know, EPA is not sending a witness because the witch hunters threw this panel together so quickly. [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 11:10 pm
The house was purchased in October 2007 by Etz Chaim of Teaneck which hired Rabbi Daniel Feldman as its leader and rented the house to him. [read post]
Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 1:31 am
In the latest development in the "Toxic Sofa" litigation (see our blogs of 30 March 2010 and 29 April 2010), the High Court has ruled in (1) Argos Ltd (2) Homebase Ltd and Others v Leather Trade House Ltd (Formerly BLC Leather Technology Centre Ltd) [2012] EWHC 1348 (QB) that Argos and Homebase are able to recover by way of an indemnity from Leather Trade House the sums they had paid out to victims of a harmful anti-fungal chemical used in their leather… [read post]