Search for: "Owings v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 9,886
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2007, 8:42 am
I owe the Legislature of Pennsylvania an apology. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 12:28 am
As a result, the state could rely simply on two affidavits to establish the restitution amount the defendant owed. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 6:28 pm
In Mayo Foundation, et al. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2007, 1:59 am
The recent United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 5:32 pm
United States: Whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or government employment, but has informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking, owes a fiduciary duty... [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 6:35 am
The recent case of Towe v. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 1:42 pm
Broadhead v. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 1:42 pm
Broadhead v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 8:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 4:44 am
Here are the materials in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 11:59 am
See United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:33 am
The first issue was whether the state can owe an operational duty under article 2 ECHR to a hospital patient who is mentally ill but who is not formally detained under the MHA. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 9:04 am
“Gibbons v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 12:57 pm
O'Neil v. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 7:06 am
No duty of care owed by employer to employees in the conduct of civil litigation The Supreme Court has held in James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40 that the Commissioner owed no duty to protect the economic and reputational interests of officers whose alleged misconduct formed the subject of a civil claim, which the Commissioner had settled. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 1:46 pm
State v. [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 7:38 am
However, the Florida Supreme Court in Dorsey v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 10:36 am
The State defendants argued that they did not owe a duty to, nor did a "special relationship" exist with, the Dawsons. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 7:54 am
Tuesday’s argument in Sheriff v. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 1:16 pm
(Id. at p. 1163; see Randi W., 14 Cal.4th at p. 1077 [one who negligently provides false information to another can owe a duty of care to a third person “who did not receive the information and who has no special relationship with the provider”].)We therefore do not find persuasive those out-of-state cases discounting the role of foreseeability (see, e.g., Huck v. [read post]
