Search for: "State v. Light" Results 7241 - 7260 of 26,003
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2010, 10:05 am by R.J. MacReady
State: The CCA remanded this case for reconsideration in light of Murray v. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 3:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In light of the statutory language and purposes, this Court sees no basis for limiting the applicability of Judiciary Law §487 to judicial proceedings pending in New York courts. [read post]
14 May 2015, 1:59 am by Justin Bates, Arden Chambers
In Hounslow LBC v Powell; Leeds CC v Hall; Birmingham CC v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2 AC 18; [2011] HLR 23, the decision in Pinnock was held to be of general application whenever a public authority seek possession of a property that constitutes a person’s home. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 2:22 pm by David M. Marchiano
But that was the backdrop for a recent case, People v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 8:38 am by CMS
The site of the former Chelsea Barracks in London being sold by the Ministry of Defence to the sovereign wealth fund of the State of Qatar with the involvement of a Quatari bank. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 3:17 am by Alasdhair McDonald, Olswang LLP
Etherton LJ (giving the leading judgment), also held that that court was entitled “to take into account a wide range of considerations in order to ensure that the defence only applies where it is a just and proportionate response to the illegality involved in the light of the policy considerations underlying it. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 5:01 am
All he had to do was: survey the laws of all fifty states with regard to unjust enrichment and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Huber v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 5:31 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Coming to you from yet another sunny day in Seattle—the city seems to really be taking advantage of the extra light—it’s time for today’s Top 10. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:15 am by Eugene Volokh
Likewise, this Court might recognize another exception for “deceitful statements that ‘cause the deceived person to follow some course he would not have pursued but for the deceitful conduct’” (quoting United States v. [read post]