Search for: "Eastes v. Eastes" Results 4741 - 4760 of 6,741
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2011, 5:29 pm by Peter Moulinos
When a tenant’s smoking results in an intrusion of second-hand smoke into another tenant’s apartment, and that tenant complains repeatedly, the landlord runs a financial risk if it fails to take appropriate action,” Upper East Lease Associates v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 9:16 am
In 2007, plaintiff Linkevich was stopped at a red light at an Illinois intersection, facing east on Apple Valley Drive in Bartlett, Illinois. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 12:40 pm by Howard Friedman
The complaint (full text) in Verizon New York Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
The facts The respondent County Council granted planning permission in July 2009 for a proposed three mile stretch of roadway to provide a rapid bus service in South-East Hampshire. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:55 pm by Maria Roche
TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM) v London Borough of Hackney, East London NHS Foundation Trust; Secretary of State for Health –  Read judgment The Court of Appeal has ruled that the local authority, but not the detaining hospital, was liable to pay compensation to a person who had been unlawfully detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act  1983. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 2:00 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Bell & Ors v R [2011] EWCA Crim 6 (18 January 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Everett & Anor v Comojo (UK) Ltd (t/a the Metropolitan & Ors) [2011] EWCA Civ 13 (18 January 2011) Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 9 (18 January 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) CDE & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 3308 (QB) (16 December 2010) McCoy v East Midlands… [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:04 am by Adam Wagner
(para 50) On the final point, it is a well-known principle, going back to the 1914 case of East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent, and through a number of notable recent judgments beginning in 1996 with Stovin v Wise, that public authorities operating functions imposed by statute do not have a common law duty of care unless it is provided for by the statutory language, or in special circumstances where an authority has assumed an obligation to… [read post]