Search for: "Commonwealth v. Wells, B." Results 41 - 60 of 415
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2018, 12:20 pm by Ruth O'Meara-Costello
It’s also worth noting that in another relatively recent decision, Commonwealth v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 12:20 pm by Ruth O'Meara-Costello
It’s also worth noting that in another relatively recent decision, Commonwealth v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 6:24 am by The Charge
Pacheco, SJC-11216, Commonwealth v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 6:07 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Analogous case law on these types of challenges suggests both that (a) there are no time limits on challenges to the validity of debt, and (b) if held invalid, the principal amount of the debt is simply not subject to recovery. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 8:36 am by Samantha Knights, Matrix
Indeed, anyone reading the full account of the evidence and facts given in Lord Neuberger’s judgment may well form their own view as to the underlying rights and wrongs of the British actions in 1948. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 5:55 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
In addition, the Commonwealth could face billions of dollars in potential statutory and contract impairment claims from creditors who do not consent to a Title VI restructuring and assert claims against the Commonwealth for violating numerous nonimpairment covenants that the Commonwealth entered into in connection with the financing of certain of its instrumentalities, as well as guarantees of instrumentality debt issued by the Commonwealth. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Alternatively: (b) He was prepared to accept bribes paid to influence his decisions as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 3:50 pm by David Garcia and Melissa Gertler
Certain states, such as New York, California, Michigan, Texas, and Massachusetts are well-known for their involvement in mergers, as demonstrated in prior cases. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 5:15 am by Amy Howe
  In Puerto Rico v. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 10:34 pm by David Jacobson
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 761 Optus was ordered to pay to the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of $5.26 million for misleading advertisements (Optus 1 was previously discussed here). [read post]