Search for: "State v. Pound"
Results 381 - 400
of 3,410
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
The appellant sought damages for the eviction and Lambeth County Court awarded him £90,500 in damages after considering the valuation exercise of s 28 of the 1988 Act, and £9,000 at common law in respect of the trespass of his goods. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm
Since John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 general damages in libel have been limited to a ceiling at that date of £200,000, following a comparison with personal injury damages. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 5:39 pm
He attributed £50,000 to the libel and £15,000 to the malicious falsehood [189]. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 6:42 am
EEOC v Waffle House. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 7:04 am
The PSM position’s written job description stated that the position required “constantly” carrying items up to 50 pounds, but “usually 10 to 20 pounds” and “frequently” lifting items up to 75 pounds from floor to waist and up to 25 pounds horizontally. [read post]
16 May 2017, 11:53 am
Defendant stated that he could not take it anymore, and he decided to kill a woman. [read post]
25 May 2016, 12:00 pm
"Earlier this week, the Kat received an email from Chief Master Marsh in the Chancery Division who stated that all was not to be feared. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 4:23 am
Each tenancy agreement stated that a deposit had been paid. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:22 am
The plane was loaded within ten pounds of the weight limit: when the plane took off, "the tail was almost touching the ground. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 8:54 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 3:44 am
[1] International Energy Group Limited v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2012] EWHC 69 (Comm) [2] Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 [3] International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2013] EWCA Civ 39 [4] BAI (Run off) Ltd (In Scheme of Arrangement) and others v Durham and others [2012] 1 WLR 867 [5] Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 The post Case Preview: International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich… [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 3:33 pm
Further, while child related benefits might be ‘designed to meet the needs of the child’ (R (SG and Others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [ 2015 ] UKSC 16 ), this could include the child’s housing costs. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 5:26 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 12:34 pm
The borrowers' argument involves saying that, whereas in the case of, say, a loan of £1,000 repayable with interest and a document fee of £50 repayable without interest, the amount of credit is £1,000, nevertheless in the case of such a loan but with a document fee of £50 repayable with interest, the amount of credit is £1,050. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 12:34 pm
The borrowers' argument involves saying that, whereas in the case of, say, a loan of £1,000 repayable with interest and a document fee of £50 repayable without interest, the amount of credit is £1,000, nevertheless in the case of such a loan but with a document fee of £50 repayable with interest, the amount of credit is £1,050. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:27 am
Introduction In these joined appeals, the Supreme Court considered whether the “revised benefit cap” – the effect of which is to restrict the maximum amount of benefits payable to couples and lone parents to £23000 in London and £20000 elsewhere – discriminated against the lone parents of young children, and against the children themselves. [read post]
8 May 2008, 7:31 am
Shooting the homeowner's 66-pound American Straffordshire Terrier, which is closely related to and resembles a pit bull terrier, was not excessive force, either, the memorandum decision stated. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 5:01 am
[1] Arnold v Britton & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 902 (22 July 2013), para 45 [2] Ibid, para 50 [3] Ibid, para 57 [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 4:16 am
On Tuesday the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights heard the application in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 4:34 pm
Mr Spicer was instead fined £1,000, ordered to pay £500 in costs, and given nine penalty points. [read post]
