Search for: "In Interest of Jones"
Results 4481 - 4500
of 7,325
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2011, 2:17 pm
Jones). [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:22 pm
Although there is some precedent in other contexts for the proposition that “a public official … owe[s] a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public’s best interest,”[18] such a duty would be irrelevant to the problem at hand. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 8:35 am
Each week, we feature some of the most interesting news related to technology and civil liberties that we’ve spotted from the previous week. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:23 am
Commentary on the privacy and law enforcement interests at stake in United v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 1:52 am
“How should the court approach the determination of the beneficial interests in a property acquired in joint names by an unmarried couple? [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 1:47 pm
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 9:43 am
Particularly, when considered in the context of almost 100 years of collusion and greed by baseball's owners, I can't begrudge players doing what is in their best interest. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:26 pm
And it’s not just “persons of interest” anymore. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:31 pm
This week, Jones O. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:35 am
” Interestingly, the police had gotten a warrant in Jones. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 2:13 am
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53; [2011] WLR (D) 321 “When a cohabiting couple bought a family home in their joint names and were both responsible for the mortgage, but without any express declaration as to their beneficial interests, the starting point was that equity followed the law so that the presumption was that they were joint tenants both in law and in equity. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 5:39 pm
The official transcript at the Supreme Court web site also makes for interesting reading.Ernster, the Virtual Library Cat [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm
One final word on this is given at [47] where they note thatIn a case such as this, where the parties already share the beneficial interest, and the question is what their interests are and whether their interests have changed, the court will try to deduce what their actual intentions were at the relevant time. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm
The transcript (pdf) from the oral arguments is an fun read for anybody geeky enough to be interested in these subjects. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 12:55 pm
Jones case. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 10:39 am
(They also attempted to entrap him into an affair, but that’s not relevant here even if it’s more interesting.) [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:37 am
Jones and Smith v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 6:08 am
But it doesn't look like the defense lawyer did a great job (via Forbes):When Jones’s lawyer came up to argue, it was a little like watching 9 cats play with an injured mouse that they felt pity for. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 2:51 am
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Jones v Kernott, restoring the order of the county court (i.e. that Ms Jones was entitled to a 90% share of the property). [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 2:35 am
The Court considered whether a court could alter the beneficial interests of a couple who held a property in equal shares at the date of their separation but had made different levels of contribution to the mortgage, and where there was no express statement of how the title was to be shared. [read post]
