Search for: "Owings v. Respondent"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,321
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2013, 7:46 am
The negligence claim was allowed to proceed on the basis that the city may owe the respondent a common law (rather than a statutory) duty of care "to exercise its considerable power over farmers in a manner that reduces the risk of unwarranted harm".Read the decision at: Rausch v. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 2:30 am
(Aldana v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 10:58 am
Rather, I attempt to shed light on a few important points that—so far—have not received enough attention, in particular against the background of the 2007 International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision in Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 11:25 am
Debonneville v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 11:27 am
" The Court cited the pivotal Delaware case Revlon, Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 10:31 am
Lichtenstein v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 9:23 am
Boermeester v. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 11:17 am
Background: Respondent Johnson filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2014. [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 5:01 am
Specifically, Respondents argued that Sun Life owed interest on the commutation figure, and initiated arbitration to resolve this issue.In granting the Respondents’ motion to stay and compel, the Court rejected Sun Life’s argument that the reinsurance contracts at issue were terminated (and thus arbitration was improper) when it paid Respondents the commutation amount determined by the panel. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 10:12 pm
Chancellor Chandler's opinion in eBay v. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 5:00 pm
The case, Kaplan v. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 10:42 am
In FirstRand Bank Limited v Makaleng, Mr Makaleng was in arrears for R12 945.53. [read post]
29 May 2016, 1:14 pm
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 9:28 am
Strachan (Guardian ad litem of) v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 7:54 am
Germany, Jr. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:57 am
Confiscation orders were made against each respondent for over £92m, based on the respondents’ benefit of the money passing through their bank accounts. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 3:11 am
There was, however, a dispute regarding the extent of the pre-settlement costs owed by the Respondent. [read post]
26 May 2024, 8:05 am
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. [read post]