Search for: "Grimes v. Grimes" Results 121 - 140 of 217
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2017, 3:00 pm
 Justice Grimes relies on an "exigent circumstances" case that said that it was okay for a police officer to hop over a fence when he saw a gun lying on the ground and says it's the same thing here:  gun, barking and/or whining dogs, no difference. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 4:08 am by J
There is further (albeit tacit) judicial support for that argument in Bank of Scotland v Grimes [1985] 2 All ER 254, at 258; Centrax Trustees Ltd v Ross [1979] 2 All ER 952 at 955 and, most clearly, Habib Bank Ltd v Tailor [1982] 1 WLR 1218 at 1223, where Oliver LJ said that:“… one can see that the intent [of s.8] was, in the case of installment mortgages, to enable the court to defer possession if it was satisfied that there was a reasonable prospect… [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 4:08 am by J
There is further (albeit tacit) judicial support for that argument in Bank of Scotland v Grimes [1985] 2 All ER 254, at 258; Centrax Trustees Ltd v Ross [1979] 2 All ER 952 at 955 and, most clearly, Habib Bank Ltd v Tailor [1982] 1 WLR 1218 at 1223, where Oliver LJ said that:“… one can see that the intent [of s.8] was, in the case of installment mortgages, to enable the court to defer possession if it was satisfied that there was a reasonable prospect… [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 12:14 pm by Dean Freeman
State of Florida, July 15, 2016, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal More Blog Entries: Grimes v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 2:58 pm by Grimes Teich Anderson LLP
On the contrary, the best headlight system – belonging to the Toyota Prius V – was composed of LED lights and high beam assist. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 11:39 am by Steve Bainbridge
MS Word claims that the bolded section of the following excerpt from my current project is in the passive voice: In Grimes v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 6:13 pm by webmaster
Justice Grimes began by examining the interplay between Labor Code section 218.5, the bilateral fee-shifting statute, and Labor Code section 1194, which provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees, but only to successful plaintiffs in minimum wage and overtime cases. [read post]