Search for: "Unknown Owners or Claimants"
Results 41 - 60
of 148
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2022, 12:00 am
No demand was ever made against the insured against the owner of the property damaged as a result of the pollution. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 9:49 am
This is in contrast to claims of co-ownership, which accrue only once, when “plain and express repudiation of co-ownership is communicated to the claimant. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 4:38 pm
Costs in high court media disputes should be left to judges in this area of law and not used by politicians to try to force newspapers into an unknown and untested straightjacket. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 10:14 pm
Those are the paragraphs in which it is alleged that the identity of the driver/owner was ascertainable and that the claimant has not complied with the Act in failing to make all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 2:09 am
However, the precise cause of CIDP remains unknown. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 5:54 am
There may be undisclosed heirs or previous owners with unresolved claims. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm
Neither argument was accepted; the first had ‘no bearing on the arguments in this case’ and the second caused confusion given that the Lord Mayor and the Alderman and Guilds were Claimants (see Legal Bizzle’s post for more). [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 6:13 am
Many states have a process whereby an inactive account escheats to the state after it is not requested by its rightful owner. [read post]
25 May 2009, 5:18 pm
I would also limit such an exception to those who could not know they might have a claim in the bankruptcy case - thus, current owners of Chrysler cars could be given notice and forced to file a claim, no matter how contingent, but future owners of already manufactured defective Chryslers and those who have yet to be run over by these defective cars would seem to have a good argument that the Bankruptcy Code, and Congress' power under the… [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 3:52 pm
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2003 BCSC 121, paras. 17 and 18): On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that "all reasonable efforts have been made … to ascertain the identity of the unknown owner and driver …" [25] Firstly, Ms. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:02 am
” The Court noted that the “rule is intended to preclude recovery for intangible and unknown damages for lost contract or economic opportunity. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 9:01 pm
The CDPH has not taken any action against the business owner. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 6:34 pm
The People of the State of New York have presented an abstract of title, and a certificate based thereon, which show that the decedent was the owner in fee simple of the said premises at the time of his death. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 2:04 pm
The court held that the claimant was entitled to a secured claim for only amounts stated in its notice of lien assessment, but not for secured assessments that came due and remained unpaid subsequent to its recordation. [read post]
3 Jul 2016, 4:09 pm
This has been an extraordinary week in politics and, as usual, the media has had a key role to play, with one editor and one owner at the forefront. [read post]
30 Mar 2013, 7:06 am
Most auto insurance policies are going to include within the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" a hit and run vehicle whose operator or owner cannot be identified. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 8:49 am
The Wall Street entities claimed to help (relatively) small business owners sell their businesses to larger companies. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
The Cancellation Division, in 2009, annulled the CTM registration, in relation to Classes 18 and 25, accepting the first plea brought by the claimant. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 8:00 am
“unknown snow tube manufacturer” and “unknown owners and non-record claimants. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 6:18 pm
In the Maryland Case, Payments IP sought declaratory relief against, not only Rajwani and the B52 Parties but also, “all other claimants, known and unknown”; the Court reasoned that, because it did not possess personal jurisdiction over “all other” possible claimants, it must, therefore, obtain in rem jurisdiction over the Domain in order to grant the relief sought by Payments IP. [read post]
