Search for: "People v. Brown (1985)"
Results 21 - 40
of 139
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
BROWN v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm
In People v Brown, 253 Mich 537; 235 NW 245 (1931), the Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulations, but stressed that such regulations “cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 2:13 pm
Haven’t seen you around this blog for a while, CLP people. [read post]
17 Jan 2025, 6:37 pm
It will be much more useful for those on a mission to harvest for the purpose of ensuring a more efficient way of managing people, views, beliefs, cognition, etc. [read post]
4 May 2022, 7:29 am
” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.). [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
” Brown J. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 10:54 pm
-based Amgen ( AMGN - news - people ) said the Boston-based 1st U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota v. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 4:09 pm
In cases involving business, there may be a regulatory standard that allows only a limited role to the right-thinking person test (see Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985 at [34(iii)]). [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:43 pm
Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, until rendered moot by the California Supreme Court decision in People v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
Brown v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm
” As I explained in an earlier post, Congress intended RFRA to incorporate by reference the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from the era preceding Employment Division v. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 7:35 am
., the applicable test results), the principles approved by the Supreme Court in People v. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 3:25 am
Perhaps the best-known application of this thesis involves the 1954 decision in Brown v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 7:07 am
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 -166 (1985); Will v. [read post]
1 May 2010, 6:14 am
See Brown v. [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 7:38 am
Reyna, 92 Idaho 669, 448 P.2d 762, 767 (1968); see also People v. [read post]
