Search for: "Tenant v. State"
Results 1521 - 1540
of 3,367
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2007, 1:22 am
VeneziaSubscription Required
KING COUNTYLandlord/Tenant Law
DHCR Decision Denying Succession Rights Remains In Full Force, Effect; Landlord Granted Possession
Griffin Units LLC v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 11:25 pm
The note here for tenants is actually wrong in that it states that the notice is invalid where the property is unlicensed. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:06 am
In DKN Holdings LLC v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 12:39 pm
In Matter of Kaur v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 12:39 pm
In Matter of Kaur v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 12:28 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITCriminal Practice
'Han' Ruling Means That Statute is Constitutional Under Both First Amendment, Commerce Clause
United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 10:11 pm
State ex. rel. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 4:16 pm
It did not state the name of the landlord. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 4:16 pm
It did not state the name of the landlord. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 3:54 am
State v. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 5:26 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 3:36 am
Enter Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence, High Court, Chancery Division, August 24, 2015 (no transcript apparently available. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 11:49 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2021, 7:09 am
The case, Chrysafis v. [read post]
20 Jun 2009, 4:09 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 11:33 am
The motions to exclude were denied in part and granted in part Facts: This antitrust case (Gumwood HP Shopping Partners LP v. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 11:51 am
San Francisco Apartment Ass’n v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 11:33 am
When users sign up they create a profile stating their sex, sexual orientation, and whether children will be living with them. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
. — F.Supp.2d —-, 2007 WL 43747 (S.D.Ohio) United States District Court, S.D. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 1:09 pm
The plaintiffs, the owner and a tenant of 287 Broadway, sued for damages resulting from the excavation and moved for summary judgment under the Ordinance, which states that “when an excavation is carried to a depth of more than ten feet below the legally established curb level the person who causes such excavation shall at all times and at his or her own expense, preserve and protect from injury adjoining structures”.The Court of Appeals noted that, as a general… [read post]
