Search for: "State v. Borough"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,317
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2013, 2:49 pm
Shah v Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 3657 (Admin) [Not on Bailii yet. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 1:39 pm
Both are Article 14 discrimination based, with disabilities meaning a bedroom could not be shared, one adult partners and the other a non-dependant requiring overnight care 2 mights a week.There is also an Upper Tribunal decision, LA v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (HB) [2013] UKUT 546 (AAC). [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 1:39 pm
Both are Article 14 discrimination based, with disabilities meaning a bedroom could not be shared, one adult partners and the other a non-dependant requiring overnight care 2 mights a week.There is also an Upper Tribunal decision, LA v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (HB) [2013] UKUT 546 (AAC). [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 7:08 am
In the meantime England have managed to retain (yay) and then lose (boo) the Ashes, so it just goes to show that there are worse things in the world than tardy blog writers.The issue in the two cases is neatly stated by Kitchin LJ at [2]:“The central issue on this appeal is whether the decisions in Manek and Desnousse continue to bind this court in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow… [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 7:08 am
In the meantime England have managed to retain (yay) and then lose (boo) the Ashes, so it just goes to show that there are worse things in the world than tardy blog writers.The issue in the two cases is neatly stated by Kitchin LJ at [2]:“The central issue on this appeal is whether the decisions in Manek and Desnousse continue to bind this court in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow… [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 9:17 am
In PPL v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 5:15 am
The employee filed suit under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
(G) v Barnet London Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 208 (HL(E)) establishes that it is not possible to carve out a section 17 duty to house families where children are already accommodated. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
(G) v Barnet London Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 208 (HL(E)) establishes that it is not possible to carve out a section 17 duty to house families where children are already accommodated. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 7:45 pm
Starbucks Secret menu hereCat Poop Coffee v Starbucks Coffee here (yes, you read that correctly) [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 2:59 pm
Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“Starbucks V”) concluding that Starbucks failed to prove that the defendant’s use of the marks MISTER CHARBUCKS and CHARBUCKS BLEND is likely to dilute Starbucks’s famous marks including, of course, STARBUCKS. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:29 am
It stated that there should be a two-step process for evaluating potential zoning changes. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 7:38 am
London Borough of Wandsworth v NJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1373NJ applied as homeless to Wandsworth. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 7:38 am
London Borough of Wandsworth v NJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1373NJ applied as homeless to Wandsworth. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 9:04 pm
It relied very heavily upon the 1920 precedent in Missouri v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 1:06 pm
The effect of the lies and bullying, and the strain on the community is evidenced by the recent settlement in the matter of Borough of Harvey Cedars v. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 8:08 am
In State by Highway Commissioner v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 2:51 am
The post Case Comment:Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2013] UKSC 59 appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 12:00 am
The European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) has handed down its judgment in a key, long-running TUPE case – Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 7:04 am
In response to the decision by the State Supreme Court in the Borough of Harvey Cedars v. [read post]
