Search for: "Owings v. Respondent"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,297
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2017, 4:22 am
In Padilla v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 11:35 am
He notified Facebook but allegedly it never responded. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 9:50 pm
" Since the firm was never retained to respond to IPL's summary judgment motion (and presumably not paid to do that work) the firm was entitled to summary judgment. [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Leitner of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Leitner of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed). [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 4:12 am
Marathon questioned how 1776 could fund a new well when it owed millions on other wells. 1776 responded that the new well would be funded by outside investors. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 12:00 pm
(Flores, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 87, fn. 4; see Lee v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 8:21 am
In a landmark decision in the case of Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) ruled on a jurisdictional issue on whether the claimants/appellants have an arguable case that the defendants/respondents – Royal Dutch Shell (an English domiciled company) – owed them a common law duty of care so as properly to found jurisdiction against a foreign subsidiary company (Shell Petroleum Development… [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 2:57 am
The issue before the Court was whether the respondent was not aware, and could not with reasonable diligence have been aware, that the damage had been caused by the breach of a duty owed to him. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 10:08 pm
., Ltd. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 2:02 pm
Bar v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 2:06 am
The respondents’ activities at a stadium (speedway racing) constituted a nuisance owing to noise and, as the respondents had failed to establish a prescriptive right to carry out these activities, the injunction granted by the judge was restored, although it remained stayed because the appellants’ house had not yet been rebuilt after a fire. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 2:20 am
The Court considered that the requirement that the settlement debts must owe their creation to Edmondson’s services provided to the claimants under the CFAs was satisfied on the facts. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 5:25 am
Silvestri v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 11:30 am
LORI GREGORY, IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BALLENTINE v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 1:21 pm
BB&T responded that it owed no fiduciary duties to the Defendants and that it was simply pursuing the options available to it as the holder of loans that were in default. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 10:52 am
Gonzales v. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 2:43 am
This allegation was struck out in the High Court on the basis that the respondent did not owe a ‘non-delegable duty of care’, and was not liable for any negligence on the part of the contractors who provided the lessons. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 5:48 am
In Parker v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 2:06 pm
In Coleman v. [read post]
