Search for: "People v. House"
Results 8221 - 8240
of 12,874
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2013, 8:42 pm
Free for in-house counsel, R&D professionals and to academics, so don’t miss out on this one! [read post]
2 Mar 2013, 2:37 pm
Broekman: Telling Boxes—Towards a Kevelson Archive12.30 – 14.00: Lunch in the Katz Hall14.00 – 14.45: Larry Catà Backer: Legal Semiotics and Political Practice: The Semiotics of a One-Party System14.45 – 15.30: Meghann Garrett: From Intellectual Property Attorney to In-House Council—A Change in Perspective15.30 – 15.45: Tea/Coffee Break15.45 – 16.45: Alan C. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 1:27 pm
Bailey v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:30 am
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.The ERA continued to be introduced to every subsequent congress after its failure in 1923, until 1972, when the amendment was passed in the House, Senate, and was signed by President Richard Nixon. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 12:02 am
The large families problem Finally, a break of sorts for homelessness units across the land was reported on Nearly Legal – The Case of Sharif v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 4:32 pm
(iii) C.B.F.C. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 8:33 pm
Holder with Fisher v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 7:23 am
Non-IAEA (PC 10452 v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 7:00 am
Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 4:03 pm
However, in Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44 he was described by Lord Hoffmann as being “hostile to the spirit of Reynolds” and his finding in favour of the Saudi Arabian businessman was reversed, the House of Lords finding that qualified privilege did apply. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 12:52 pm
” As Wells posted earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Clapper v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 7:33 am
In People v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 4:50 am
In Michigan v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 2:14 pm
Supreme Court last week, Bailey v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 5:01 am
To be struck down, the law must violate a provision of the applicable Federal or state Constitution.A recent example of this principle showed up in Fite v. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am
Mr Arden [QC for Camden] referred also to the decision of the House of Lords in Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2002] AC 301, relating to the definition of “a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling” in section 1 of the Housing Act 1988. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am
Mr Arden [QC for Camden] referred also to the decision of the House of Lords in Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2002] AC 301, relating to the definition of “a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling” in section 1 of the Housing Act 1988. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm
”At the hearing of the claim, the District Judge held: (a) cl.31, insofar as it applied to the entire borough, was not an “obligation of the tenant”, applying RMR Housing v Combs [1951] 1 K.B. 486 (b) insofar as it related to anything which was “local” to his flat then Wandsworth had failed to prove, as a matter of fact, that his ASB was in the area (c) in any event, it too was not an obligation of the tenancy (d) if he was wrong about that, it… [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm
”At the hearing of the claim, the District Judge held: (a) cl.31, insofar as it applied to the entire borough, was not an “obligation of the tenant”, applying RMR Housing v Combs [1951] 1 K.B. 486 (b) insofar as it related to anything which was “local” to his flat then Wandsworth had failed to prove, as a matter of fact, that his ASB was in the area (c) in any event, it too was not an obligation of the tenancy (d) if he was wrong about that, it… [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 2:04 pm
Snyder v. [read post]
