Search for: "Lancaster v. Lancaster"
Results 381 - 400
of 529
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2010, 9:30 am
Supp. 2d 556, 560 n.2 (D.N.J. 2000) (“the UCC financial statement”); 21 West Lancaster Corp. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2010, 7:29 am
This is stated in Highlands Insurance Company v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:24 am
Click Here DECISIONS Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 pm
The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am
Click Here Pennsylvania Steel Beam and Concrete Manufacturers Settle Chemical Release Reporting Violations at Lancaster, Williamsport and Denver Plants. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 7:25 pm
Miller of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas issued an Opinion and Order only in the case of Burton v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 10:23 am
Sherwood v Town of Lancaster In this Article 78 case, the petitioner sought to appeal the Supreme Court ruling that he was ineligible to receive credit for unused vacation and sick leave accrued as of the date of his retirement. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:32 pm
A landlord is not usually liable for acts of nuisance by his tenants unless he has, for example, encouraged to approved of the nuisance behaviour: see Smith v Scott [1973] Ch 314; Hussain v Lancaster CC [2000] 1 QB 1 and Mowam v LB Wandsworth [2001] 33 HLR 56. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:32 pm
A landlord is not usually liable for acts of nuisance by his tenants unless he has, for example, encouraged to approved of the nuisance behaviour: see Smith v Scott [1973] Ch 314; Hussain v Lancaster CC [2000] 1 QB 1 and Mowam v LB Wandsworth [2001] 33 HLR 56. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:26 pm
Lancaster, 470 N.W.2d 351, 358 (Iowa 1991). [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 4:10 am
Claiming entitlement to payment for unused vacation and sick leave credit upon resignationSherwood v Town of Lancaster, 2010 NY Slip Op 06057, Decided on July 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth DepartmentRichard J. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 3:54 pm
But I think probably what the court meant was a taking that the government does not truly to serve a public purpose, but instead more to give the property to another individual person, the kind of Calder v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:43 am
Lancaster, No. 09 CH 18611, 2009 WL 6521389 (Cir. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 9:52 am
Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir.1995) (quoting United Mine Workers v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 3:00 am
Lancaster, 390 S.W.2d at 221; Kroger Co., 387 S.W.2d at 626; Roberts at 871. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:00 am
Lancaster v. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 7:33 am
Celestino v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
Duh. - ECJ ruling in Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG (IPKat) (Managing IP) Frisdranken/Red Bull dispute is referred to ECJ: Frisdranken Industrie Winters v Red Bull GmbH (Class 46) A serious reference or is somebody winding us up? [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
Click Here US District Court Decision in US v. [read post]
