Search for: "Shah v. Shah"
Results 321 - 340
of 605
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
Hirsch, EEOC v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 2:00 pm
Ohio 2015); Shah v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 5:24 am
Ct. 2567 (2011), and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am
He applied his Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England, which purported to apply the House of Lords judgment in R v Barnet LBC, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Turner J’s judgment in R v Waltham Forest, ex parte Vale The Times, 25 February 1985. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
In Shah v. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 12:12 pm
Ahmed v Shah, Bradford County Court. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
In Shah v. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 4:09 pm
Shah had previously complained to the high court over articles in the Croydon Advertiser which described him as a “rogue landlord”, including the report of the fire. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 1:29 pm
Co., Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 8:40 am
CDM Media USA, Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 6:30 am
Kraemer, Sweatt v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:00 am
In general, this means that a person will be ordinarily resident in the place which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being: R v Barnet London Borough Council, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309. [read post]
Refusing to cede control of LinkedIn group supports noncompete, trade secret claims against employee
1 Apr 2015, 6:28 am
Simms, March 25, 2015, Shah, M.). [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 10:17 am
Similarly, in the Shah v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 3:06 am
Statements in Open Court and Apologies On 12 March 2015, there was a statement in open court in the case of Abbas v Shah. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
[v] See chapter 3 of Scott D. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 1:36 pm
Mooney v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 8:18 am
In Fifield v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 8:18 am
In Fifield v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 2:44 pm
But it's exceptionally displeased that -- as is undoubtedly the case -- the judiciary in that country is heavily influenced by the position of the government, and probably doesn't like lawsuits by people (as here) who fled Iran after the overthrow of the Shah and are now trying to get that property back.Plus there's the fact that the plaintiffs here aren't Muslim, and that one of them (gasp!) [read post]
