Search for: "Kruger v. Kruger"
Results 121 - 140
of 202
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2017, 2:24 pm
The opinion in People v. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 8:58 am
" In Powell v. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 12:32 pm
Courts have left this question open for nearly two decades, but the California Supreme Court finally settled the issue in Lawson v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 8:18 am
Damn....In other news, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:19 am
*Len Kruger is a Director of Real Estate Practice, at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 8:30 am
By Jake McGowan [writings][LinkedIn] Lohan v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 2:32 am
The court referred to Kruger v Coetzee 1996 (2) SA 428 (A) where the court held that the claimant must prove not only that the possibility should have been foreseen but also that there were reasonable steps which should have been taken. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 5:52 pm
Separately, in Mayorkas v. [read post]
19 Sep 2024, 6:53 am
Ngwenya v Accelerate Property Fund Gauteng High Court, case no 2022/13159 [read post]
5 Jun 2011, 9:03 am
I'm very confident that Wal-Mart v. [read post]
4 May 2018, 12:24 pm
See, Association of Irritated Residents v. [read post]
29 Aug 2023, 10:00 pm
Koch & Kruger Brokers CC and Another v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (CCT 229/22) [2023] ZACC 27 (15 August 2023) [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:13 pm
Kruger Products Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2023, 2:39 am
Using the Kruger v Coetzee1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-H negligence test, the court asked whether (a) a person in the position of the defendant would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of this conduct injuring the plaintiff; and (b) whether such person would have taken reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and (c) did the defendant fail to take such steps. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:13 pm
Kruger Products Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 4:13 am
” “In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Martino v Patmar Props., Inc., 123 AD3d 890, 890 [2014]; Kruger v Donzelli Realty Corp., 111 AD3d 897 [2013]; Smith v Christ’s First Presbyt. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 12:48 pm
In Gaines v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 4:01 pm
Today, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in Troester v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 8:18 am
Justice Kruger dissented, joined by Justice Werdegar. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 2:02 pm
Even in Cariou v. [read post]
