Search for: "Foote v. Grant"
Results 481 - 500
of 1,643
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
The Court of Appeal (Dame Victoria Sharp P, Sir Geoffrey Vos C and Davis LJ) unanimously allowed Mr Lloyd’s appeal (with the Chancellor giving the only substantive judgment), granting him permission to serve out. [read post]
23 May 2010, 7:37 pm
In Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 4:43 am
BASSIRI V. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 3:18 pm
TDY Holdings v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 3:18 pm
TDY Holdings v. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 2:05 am
Additional Resources: Panzera v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 1:30 pm
The court commented:Litigation has now been on foot for almost eight years and has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:26 am
In Jenkins v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:26 am
In Jenkins v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:26 am
In Jenkins v. [read post]
3 Nov 2018, 2:59 pm
Friends of Lubavitch, Inc. v Zoll, 2018 WL 5279363 (unrep. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 6:19 am
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 4:14 am
See United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 3:23 am
The Court was not willing to entertain Becker's taking argument, since it was not clear that the Board's decision would preclude all economically beneficial use of the property, but noted that denail of variances might, under some circumstances, constitute a taking.Finally, the Court noted that the Board was not an administrative body which had discretion to do or not do an act, for which a mere statement that the applying party had failed to satisfy the burden of persuasion would suffice,… [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 7:33 pm
Maryland Casualty v. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 7:33 pm
Maryland Casualty v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:51 pm
On February 22, 2011, Judge Terrence Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a 69 page opinion addressing the post-trial motions filed in the case of Sedor v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 5:48 pm
., decided on November 21, 2011, The New York Court of Appeals in a 4-3 decision granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing a construction worker's 240(1) claim. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 1:46 am
However, lack of clarity is not a ground of opposition, unless the lack of clarity arises as a result of post-grant amendments giving rise to new clarity issues (G 3/14, EPO Guidelines for Examination, D-V-5). [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 5:54 am
In Raybourne v. [read post]
