Search for: "People v. Herring" Results 5701 - 5720 of 23,559
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2007, 6:42 am
People v Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 498-499, 593 N.E.2d 1328, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920; People v Burger, 67 N.Y.2d 338, 344, 493 N.E.2d 926, 502 N.Y.S.2d 702). [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 6:39 am
People v Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 498-499, 593 N.E.2d 1328, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920; People v Burger, 67 N.Y.2d 338, 344, 493 N.E.2d 926, 502 N.Y.S.2d 702). [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 10:52 am by SJM
[Now on Bailii [2011] EW Misc 18 (CC) ]The case deals with the issue of termination of joint tenancies via a notice to quit under the rule in Hammersmith v Monk and the proportionality/lawfulness of possession proceedings within Article 8 ECHR.JB had been the secure tenant of her 3 bedroom council property since 2002 and her sole tenancy became a joint tenancy after she married her husband, RB. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 10:52 am by SJM
[Now on Bailii [2011] EW Misc 18 (CC) ]The case deals with the issue of termination of joint tenancies via a notice to quit under the rule in Hammersmith v Monk and the proportionality/lawfulness of possession proceedings within Article 8 ECHR.JB had been the secure tenant of her 3 bedroom council property since 2002 and her sole tenancy became a joint tenancy after she married her husband, RB. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm by Michael Froomkin
Many of her comments were about showing off her long civic record. [read post]
22 May 2018, 10:16 am by Andrew Hamm
Kagan told the story of the first appellate argument in her life – none other than the reargument in Citizens United v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
” Whitney Cooney discusses the cert denial in Severson v. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm by admin
Despite their obvious intelligence, capacity for affection, when it comes to toxicology, dogs are not people, although some people act like the less reputable varieties of dogs. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 11:45 pm by Matthew Hill
Updated | R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, [2010] EWCA Civ 1109 - read judgment The Court of Appeal has held that a local authority was entitled to reduce the care package provided to one of its resident following a re-assessment of her needs, even though this had the effect of forcing her, against her wishes, to use incontinence pads and/or absorbent sheets at night. [read post]