Search for: "Park v State"
Results 9581 - 9600
of 11,306
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2019, 4:02 pm
The first relevant judgment in this regard is that of His Honour Judge Richard Parkes QC in Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2151 (QB), an usual case involving a dating agency and claims for libel, malicious falsehood, deceit and misrepresentation, in which he stated:- “In my judgment, the allegations that the [the dating agency] appears to be solely focussed on obtaining its fees, without giving anything in return, and to be… [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 11:19 am
Both cases involved chain stores with multiple locations and accessibility problems in their parking lots. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 10:22 am
See Colley v. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 10:22 am
See Colley v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
http://j.st/5vG Cash v. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 10:57 am
See State v. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 9:15 am
• Lester V. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 2:46 am
XX v HMRC (IP finance) United States US Patents ‘Sub-standard’ patents cost the US economy over $25 billion a year. [read post]
28 May 2010, 9:46 am
Thus, for the factual and legal reasons stated above, this result is mandated by the principles of justice. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 11:35 am
Hamtramck and Highland Park were at one time factory towns – and Hamtramck has the dubious distinction of the site of a terrible eminent domain for economic development land grab, Poletown v. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 5:52 pm
Resolved complaints include: Mrs Lorna Leckie v The Scottish Sun, Mr Andrew Curtis v The Sun, Dr Kalind Parashar v Daily Mail and Councillor James Moher v Brent & Kilburn Times. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 5:33 pm
" Marshall, 909 S.W.2d at 899 (quoting Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 11:32 pm
United States, 267 U.S. 132. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 8:03 am
In Holt v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 3:22 am
Park Ave Rest Corp., 46 Misc 3d 670 [Sup Ct Kings County Oct. 28, 2014] [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 7:23 am
Nov. 8, 2019) a District Judge in California disagrees, finding that blind plaintiffs unhappy with electric scooters stated a plausible claim under Title II of the ADA because “[i]t was predictable, not just foreseeable, that the scooters would sometimes be parked carelessly and block” the path of the disabled. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 9:35 am
Baroudi v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 9:58 am
Thaler v. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 7:04 pm
See United States v. [read post]
1 May 2022, 4:30 pm
On Friday 29 April 2022 there was a hearing in the case of Vardy v Rooney. [read post]
