Search for: "People v. House" Results 4121 - 4140 of 11,169
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2008, 9:45 pm
Gosbjorn moved out of the house they owned together, and into a basement suite. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 4:58 am by Brian Wolfman
Under the Supreme Court's recent decision in National Federation of Indepedent Business v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 4:05 pm
  And, thanks to the more than 650,000 people just like you who signed the petition supporting Rep. [read post]
3 May 2017, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
”Although House Republicans voted to replace Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, the new leadership immediately jumped on McConnell’s bandwagon. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 7:58 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Monday 29 February 2016 the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of R (MA & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & other cases concerning the changes to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 and whether they discriminate against disabled people and victims of domestic abuse, who may have a need for an additional bedroom by reasons of their disability or a safe room, in breach of art 14 taken together with art 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 4:31 am by Russ Bensing
  The State relied heavily on Lakewood v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm by NL
This is a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal from Central London County Court. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 5:56 am
PepsiCo, Inc. v. # 1 Wholesale, LLC., 2007 WL 2142294 (N.D. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 1:54 am
For information regarding subscribing to Gallerywatch services contact http://www.gallerywatch.com  Subscription needed for online access: 12/08/2009 Court Filing: Cobell v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 12:50 am by Matthew Flinn
If that were true, the prosecution of E could send the wrong message to other young people being similarly exploited. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 8:17 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
" Moreover, the massive overall ranges in ideal district size in both houses (Senate: 44.22%; House: 21.57%) reveal that even if Hawaii may exclude this many people, the 2012 Plan still does not pass muster because these ranges far exceed the 10% deviations the Supreme Court has established for presuming a plan is unconstitutional. [read post]