Search for: "House v. Close" Results 4801 - 4820 of 7,517
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Mar 2013, 4:54 pm
In this context it made little difference that the second word in the composite mark was UVEDA rather than AVEDA, since those two words were both visually and aurally so very close. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 1:38 am by Ben Reeve-Lewis
 Well I told him I was closing the blog over Easter but he'd already written it ... [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 6:33 pm by Pamela Wolf
Although the decisions may be very close, several commentators have predicted the Supreme Court will find both Proposition 8 and DOMA unconstitutional. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Katz closed the door to the phone booth to establish his reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 9:07 am by Graham Smith
Under French law that requires the permission of the couture houses. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 5:09 am
However, the appeals court said that McCleese can seek that the charges against him be dismissed based on the decision in People v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 2:44 am by Jack Goldsmith
The continuing resolution passed both houses with this provision in it; the President could in theory refuse to sign it. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:26 am by The Charge
  Public housing agencies have rules and regulations regarding prior convictions: in Lowell Housing Authority v.Melendez, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a violent offense which occurred within one mile from the defendant’s home in a public housing complex was close enough to endanger the other tenants of the housing complex to permit the termination of his lease. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 2:41 am by INFORRM
In related news, on Tuesday 26 March 2013, the House of Lords will consider amendments to the Justice and Security Bill, concerning closed material proceedings, made by the House of Commons. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am by NL
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am by NL
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]