Search for: "STATE v HARVEY"
Results 701 - 720
of 901
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2010, 5:13 pm
Baker v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 5:13 pm
Baker v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 11:56 am
In addition to this, all state public defender cases are included. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 9:49 am
The operation of the State Water Project’s Harvey O. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 6:31 am
Unveils Diligence™ Document Review Platform - http://tinyurl.com/2bpqem6 RealPractice Deepens Legal Technology Focus with Key Executive Hires and New Funding - http://tinyurl.com/288gkxk SaaS Email Security and Compliance Leader Proofpoint Reports Q210 Results, 7 Years of Record Quarterly Revenues - http://tinyurl.com/28f5udy Social Media Litigation Support via CaseCenteral - http://tinyurl.com/26oq3pk Case Summaries eDiscovery Case Law via DiscoverApplied (@discoverapplied) Canada, Divorce,… [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 11:07 am
That was a question that was left open in the Virginia Military Institute case [United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 3:13 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, R (on the application of) v Tesco Stores Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 841 (29 July 2010) Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 (29 July 2010) Aylott v Stockton- On- Tees Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 910 (29 July 2010) GR & Ors (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 871 (29 July 2010) W (Algeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 898 (29 July… [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 8:05 am
In today’s case (Zale v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
This was well-summarised by the Court in the following terms: (i) a claim for possession of land is the modern equivalent of a claim for ejectment (see the discussion in Secretary of State for the Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780, paragraphs 6-7, 26-33, and 59-61); (ii) a claim for ejectment (as opposed to a claim for an injunction in trespass) could only be maintained by someone who could establish a legal estate in the land (see e.g. per Lord Mansfield CJ,… [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
This was well-summarised by the Court in the following terms: (i) a claim for possession of land is the modern equivalent of a claim for ejectment (see the discussion in Secretary of State for the Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780, paragraphs 6-7, 26-33, and 59-61); (ii) a claim for ejectment (as opposed to a claim for an injunction in trespass) could only be maintained by someone who could establish a legal estate in the land (see e.g. per Lord Mansfield CJ,… [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:31 am
KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:00 am
Gaza conflict a “lawful excuse” In R v ? [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:31 pm
Kern County Water Agency v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 5:07 pm
This “prejudice” is not the type of prejudice that this Court referred to in State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 12:47 am
The End Times are drawing near, the X-ists are about to land, the False Prophets will kiss their dinosaurian asses and this planet will be sold down the river as sure as Lee Harvey Oswald's clone cashed the Conspiracy's checks [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 3:30 am
The End Times are drawing near, the X-ists are about to land, the False Prophets will kiss their dinosaurian asses and this planet will be sold down the river as sure as Lee Harvey Oswald's clone cashed the Conspiracy's checks [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 8:43 am
Phan v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:59 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) D, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1485 (29 June 2010) Budimir & Anor, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1486 (29 June 2010) Harvey, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1317 (19 May 2010) Mortimer, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1303 (25 May 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) JN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 723 (29 June 2010) Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation & Ors… [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 11:22 am
The Georgia Supreme Court order in Phan v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:26 am
The landlord had in fact provided a personal address before B made her application, and, in agreement with HHJ Bullimore in Harvey v Bamforth (our report here), there is no breach where the prescribed information is provided after 14 days but before and application was made by the tenant. [read post]
