Search for: "MATTER OF TRUST B UNDER LAST WILL" Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,238
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2010, 10:45 pm by Angus McCullough QC
South Essex Partnership NHS Trust [2010] EWHC 865, Mackay J -read our post Mrs Savage? [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 3:50 am by Sandy Levinson
This is, incidentally, not the case at the Lyndon B. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 3:03 pm by NL
However, the Court of Appeal decided that a) the matter was of wider public interest and b) given that the appellant’s current AST was shortly to end, there was a [surely slim] possibility that Enfield would find that the chain of causation hadn’t been broken and that the appellant and his wife remained intentionally homeless, as per their review decision under appeal. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 5:27 pm
Seventh and last for this Blog article, title presumptions are a kind of "super presumption" under the law in the sense that generally in order to rebut (disprove) them, the evidence that you submit must be "clear and convincing. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 8:11 am by Mandelman
  But, no matter, the bankers wanted it and he vetoed it anyway, so… surprise! [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 9:52 am by Eugene Volokh
There was a proposal last year in Massachusetts that would have generally criminalized rape by fraud, and I blogged about it here; but to my knowledge it didn’t go anywhere. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 4:04 pm by Elie Mystal
And once that happens, there’s got to be a way for a lawyer and client to explore their personal relationship without causing the whole firm to lose the client or the client to lose trusted representation.And if you tell lawyers and clients that they just can not under any circumstances have sex together… well, then all that’s going to happen is you’ll have more lawyers and clients lying to the bar and their partners, trying to keep relationships… [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 9:58 am by Betsy McKenzie
” I have identified 573 such high-ranking officials, whom I have listed in Appendix B, infra. [read post]
11 Sep 2010, 11:37 pm by Steve Vladeck
” This definition is basically a carbon copy of the controversial definition of who can be tried by a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (see 10 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 4:46 am by Maxwell Kennerly
GREENE terminates the Agreement under Section 8(b), or PHA terminates the Agreement under Section 8(c), PHA shall pay MR. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 4:15 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Even under the relatively undemanding standard of Boyle, these allegations do not adequately plead an associationin- fact enterprise. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 6:15 am by John Buford
Discovery ensued, and at the end of discovery Plaintiff moved to reconsider the dismissal of the fiduciary duty claim under Rule 54(b). [read post]