Search for: "Smith v. Williams" Results 921 - 940 of 1,398
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am by NL
In Say v Smith (1563) Plowd 269, 272, Anthony Brown J said that “every contract sufficient to make a lease for years ought to have certainty in three limitations, viz in the commencement of the term, in the continuance of it, and in the end of it … and words in a lease, which don’t make this appear, are but babble.”25. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am by NL
In Say v Smith (1563) Plowd 269, 272, Anthony Brown J said that “every contract sufficient to make a lease for years ought to have certainty in three limitations, viz in the commencement of the term, in the continuance of it, and in the end of it … and words in a lease, which don’t make this appear, are but babble.”25. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 9:47 am by INFORRM
On 20 to 23 February 2023 Heather Williams J heard the trial in the case of Hay v Cresswell. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 8:27 pm by Simon Gibbs
The argument put forward by some claimant representatives was that explained in Smiths Dock v Edwards [2004] EWHC 1116 QB: “Mr Morgan QC submitted that because most wholly unsuccessful cases reach trial whilst most successful cases settle before trial, there is a disequilibrium that should result in higher success fees. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 6:16 pm
Duty of Care to Fetus Anne Posno of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP discussed Paxton v. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
Law. 261 (2021), David Sella-Villa, William & Mary Law School. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Goes back at least to White-Smith Music; also occurred in video game cases. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
First Amendment Expansionism, William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2015, Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2015-36. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]