Search for: "LANGLEY v. US "
Results 41 - 60
of 84
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2014, 7:33 am
He has been negatively affected in his ability to engage in physical activities with his children, and he has become less useful around the home that he shares with his wife and family. [read post]
23 Mar 2014, 4:00 am
R. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 5:41 pm
FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 8:09 am
Desharnais, 2009 BCSC 306 ($55,000), Langley v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:05 am
Other related news articles:Top court to rule on search, seizure of electronic devices, Advocate Daily Police search of Langley grow-op upheld, Langley Times March 27 — Quebec — Buzizi v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 5:01 am
Because of time constraints – one can do only so much in a three-credit course – I do not invest classroom time in the exploration of section 280A(d)(3), which provides that a taxpayer is not treated as using a residence for personal purposes by reason of a rental arrangement for any period if for that period the residence is rented at fair rental to any person for that person’s use of the residence as the person’s principal residence.In a recent case,… [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 12:53 pm
More Blog Posts: Appeals Court Affirms Seemingly Low Damage Award in Medication Error Case, Amends Judgment to Add Loss of Consortium Damages: Langley v. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 9:44 am
After a trial in Langley v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 12:24 pm
The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 9:51 pm
Kyllo v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:48 am
The injunction was granted by Mr Justice Langley in October 2005, in Hempel A/S v Brian Bradford. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 4:42 am
In Scory v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 1:16 pm
In today’s case (Dobre v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 9:11 am
Read the decision at: Mitchell v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:33 pm
Langley (Township), Zanatta, Cassels, 2007 BCSC 993, at para. 198; Strachan v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:50 pm
Richard Langley (Bircham Dyson Bell LLP). [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 1:08 pm
Plaintiff v. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 3:40 am
It is settled law that that removal of children should usually be effected pursuant to an Emergency Protection Order (EPO), and that section 46 should only be used where it is not practicable to execute an EPO (Langley -v- Liverpool City Council). [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 2:36 pm
Phelan, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Representing D&L Langley Trucking: Scott E. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 10:13 am
But U.S. v. [read post]
