Search for: "Park v. State" Results 5061 - 5080 of 10,581
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2015, 6:25 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:44 am by Bob Kraft
On Feb. 10, Houston’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued Brazos Presbyterian Homes d/b/a The Hallmark v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:14 am by J. Bradley Smith, Esq.
It is said that the law cannot keep pace with society, evolving about twenty years slower than the culture, but even the United States Supreme Court has caught on to the uniqueness of the modern “cell phone,” calling the devices “minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone” in a landmark case last year called Riley v. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
On 16 February 2015, HHJ Parkes QC handed down judgment in the libel case of Rai v Bholowasia [2015] EWHC B2 (QB) (heard 19-23, and 26 to 27 January 2015). [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 8:53 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 240 [1984]; Matter of Adirondack Council, Inc. v Adirondack Park Agency, 92 AD3d 188, 191 [2012]; Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Campbell, 238 AD2d 831, 832-833 [1997]). [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 8:53 am
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 240 [1984]; Matter of Adirondack Council, Inc. v Adirondack Park Agency, 92 AD3d 188, 191 [2012]; Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Campbell, 238 AD2d 831, 832-833 [1997]). [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 9:17 pm by Patricia Salkin
As to the issue of notice, even though the notice given here did not state that the proposed ordinance would repeal Local Law No. 2 (1970) of the Town of Clifton Park, the notice did state that the proposed ordinance would amend the zoning ordinance in relation to two business districts and identified the geographical area that would be affected, which included the CCA parcel. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
See HH Judge Parkes QC in Donovan v Gibbons [2014] EWHC 3406 (QB) at [6] and Warby J in Ames v Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] EWHC 127 (QB) at [55]: “….there may be circumstances in which one would naturally expect to see tangible evidence that a statement had caused harm to reputation, but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the… [read post]