Search for: "B. v. S."
Results 1741 - 1760
of 52,358
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2015, 12:30 pm
"Here, respondent based its determination upon factors and other criteria relevant to the former "practical difficulty" test, which is no longer followed, rather than on the factors set forth in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) (see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395, 402; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384). [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 1:38 pm
Simmonds v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 2:50 pm
RANDALL NORWOOD v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 2:29 pm
Phillips v. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 3:56 am
Benavides v. [read post]
13 May 2019, 8:27 am
The Holding In Anderson v. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 12:00 am
The Act also codified the Supreme Court’s holding in Alexander v. [read post]
2 May 2019, 3:10 pm
Heather’s Legal Summaries: R v Trinchi, 2019 ONCA 356 R v Trinchi is the most recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in a string of cases related to the offence of voyeurism under s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code (see our previous post on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Jarvis). [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:01 am
§ 1252(f)(1) precluded the lower courts from granting injunctive relief, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:01 am
§ 1252(f)(1) precluded the lower courts from granting injunctive relief, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:07 am
§ 507(b). [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 11:51 am
(B) Probation officers. [read post]
30 Apr 2008, 9:38 pm
This is what happened in a recent case of Gordon v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 7:13 pm
Dear Readers:In US ex rel Rigsby v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 7:13 pm
Dear Readers:In US ex rel Rigsby v. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 7:48 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 7:02 am
(b) Allowing a copper mine to take over one of the most sacred sites of a religion? [read post]
18 May 2012, 12:17 am
City of New York, NY Slip Op 03402 (2d Dept. 2012).Here is the decision.Monday’s issue: Loss of consortium. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:15 am
This was because the district court ignored Cellspin’s factual allegations that, when properly accepted as true, precluded the grant of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. [read post]
