Search for: "v. Park"
Results 901 - 920
of 17,532
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2013, 4:00 am
In Johnson v. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 4:05 am
In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 3:50 am
Matter of Park v Kapica, 8 N.Y.3d 302John Park, a police officer employed by the Town of Greenburgh, underwent surgery in June 2002 after sustaining an injury in the line of duty. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 12:12 pm
A recent Illinois case, Aleman v. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 3:00 am
In early January, the Vice Chancellor Zurn’s issued her decision in Ainslie v. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 7:04 am
—in a mobile home park in Jessup, Maryland. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 7:08 am
Angkuw”), suffered injuries when she was struck by a car as she walked from the parking lot toward the front door of a Safeway grocery store in Rockville, Maryland. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 2:01 pm
Administrative law — Planning board — Substantial evidence This judicial review action arises out of a dispute between Golozar Kaviani and the Montgomery County Planning Department of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “Planning Department”). [read post]
4 May 2015, 11:09 am
In the 1991 case of Mercer v. [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 8:33 pm
In reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Court of Appeal in the UBC Parking Fines Class Action (Barbour v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 6:34 am
(Sindell v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 11:54 am
The post City of Cleburne v. [read post]
31 May 2014, 11:13 am
According to Jackson v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 8:44 am
The Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Manushi Sangathan v. [read post]
16 May 2014, 2:12 pm
” Méndez v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 11:13 am
He dragged J.P. to a car and took her to a park. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 8:18 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Tort Law Opinions Body: AC32961 - Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC ("The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants . . . . [read post]
2 May 2007, 4:23 am
Filed April 27, 2007. [read post]
