Search for: "People v. House"
Results 1581 - 1600
of 11,168
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2014, 10:29 am
The landowner's actions relying on a valid permit must be so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless" (Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d at 47-48; see Glacial Aggregates LLC v Town of Yorkshire, 14 NY3d at 136; People v Miller, 304 NY at 109; Matter of RC Enters. v Town of Patterson, 42 AD3d at 544; People ex rel. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 2:16 pm
From today's order and accompanying opinion in Murthy v. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 11:45 am
BH cited Bowman v. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 6:04 pm
What is true is that the settlement of a federal lawsuit, Pottinger v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 2:03 pm
Official White House Photo by Pete SouzaUnderstanding Olmstead requires a basic understanding of the Medicaid waiver system. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:20 am
While we know from Reno v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:09 am
In State v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 12:58 pm
R (Gebremarium) v City of Westminster [2009] EWHC 2254 (Admin) Thanks to the Garden Court housing bulletin for pointing to this one. [read post]
18 Nov 2024, 10:08 am
There can be little doubt that the High Court decision in Coastal Housing Group v Mitchell and Ors will have wide repercussions in Wales. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 11:35 pm
Or maybe just people who believe in our legal system. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 4:31 pm
The complaint (full text) in ACLU of Northern California v. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 6:40 pm
In Legacy Church, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2015, 4:13 pm
Now in Medina v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 8:24 am
Many people are understandably focused on how a more originalist approach would influence doctrine (say on Roe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:32 am
It applied the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton DC [2004] AC 46 in interpreting the 1957 Act. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:00 am
Instead of dealing with that issue (which appears to have been around whether two people between 18 and 21 had been looked after by the council previously under the CA, when accommodation had been provided under Part 7, Housing Act 1996), the Court of Appeal decided the claim on a preliminary issue. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:00 am
Instead of dealing with that issue (which appears to have been around whether two people between 18 and 21 had been looked after by the council previously under the CA, when accommodation had been provided under Part 7, Housing Act 1996), the Court of Appeal decided the claim on a preliminary issue. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 9:34 am
” (Ashcroft v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 9:53 am
Iqbal v. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 12:41 pm
" And in Trump v. [read post]
