Search for: "State v. Singh " Results 121 - 140 of 619
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
By a majority  (Lords Phillips, Brown and Rodger dissenting), the court held that the fact that the appellants would have lawfully been detained in any event did not affect the Secretary of State’s liability in false imprisonment. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 7:32 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
Also at this blog, Tejinder Singh reports on last week’s decision in Koontz v. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 4:01 am by INFORRM
The contrast with the approach of the Court of Appeal in British Chiropractic Association v Singh is instructive. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:27 am by Sam Barr
Holder; Tejinder Singh of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C. was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 4:00 am by Administrator
 ~ BACKGROUND: This was a family law case that resulted in a special costs order against the Respondent, Jagtar Singh Hansra. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 7:38 am by Allison Trzop
Herrmann, United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:46 pm by Perry Herzfeld
Related posts:Fraudulent alienation of foreign immovables and the Moçambique rule in the Western Australian Court of Appeal Singh v Singh (2009) 253 ALR 575; [2009] WASCA 53,... [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:00 am by The Legal Blog
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 7:27 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
Perry, while the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an ;amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 6:13 am by New York Civil Law
The hospital in Barry v Lee allowed for the use of tPA, and there was an inference from defendant Dr. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 3:35 am by Amy Howe
  And the firm's Tejinder Singh serves as counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Christeson. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 7:47 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
 Tejinder Singh analyzes the Court’s opinion for this blog, explaining that “[t]he holding rests on the rationale . . . that [the federal law] seeks to honor the employee’s choice of beneficiary, and any state attempt to redirect the proceeds conflicts with that objective and is therefore preempted. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 4:04 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Zegelstein v The Roth Law Firm PLLC  2020 NY Slip Op 30581(U) February 28, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154224/2018 Judge: W. [read post]