Search for: "Matter of M C B" Results 1761 - 1780 of 3,550
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Sep 2012, 4:13 pm by NL
C. v Renshaw [1992] 1 All ER 925, as approved in Birmingham City Council v Walker [2007] UKHL 22, [2007] 2 AC 262 makes clear that s.88(1)(b) only considers a joint tenant as a successor (in a joint to sole tenancy) where the joint tenant remained in occupation and could satisfy the secure tenancy requirements. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 4:13 pm by NL
C. v Renshaw [1992] 1 All ER 925, as approved in Birmingham City Council v Walker [2007] UKHL 22, [2007] 2 AC 262 makes clear that s.88(1)(b) only considers a joint tenant as a successor (in a joint to sole tenancy) where the joint tenant remained in occupation and could satisfy the secure tenancy requirements. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 9:35 am by Daniel Shaviro
I'm reminded of the old joke: "Who are you gonna believe, honey - me or your lying eyes? [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am by Rebecca Tushnet
If artists want to be paid in attribution, and release work under CC licenses, then someone who copies w/o attribution shouldn’t win fair use automatically b/c there’s no market harm. [read post]
7 May 2019, 8:27 am by John Rubin
This result also makes sense to me as a policy matter. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 3:31 am by Peter Mahler
The S&H Nadlan Case In S&H Nadlan, LLC v MLK Associates, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 30523(U) [Sup Ct NY County Mar. 7, 2016], Justice Donna M. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 3:31 am by Peter Mahler
The S&H Nadlan Case In S&H Nadlan, LLC v MLK Associates, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 30523(U) [Sup Ct NY County Mar. 7, 2016], Justice Donna M. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 3:31 am by Peter Mahler
The S&H Nadlan Case In S&H Nadlan, LLC v MLK Associates, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 30523(U) [Sup Ct NY County Mar. 7, 2016], Justice Donna M. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:26 pm
`[B]efore she could do anything,’ the guard `snatched her up and . . . took her out of the building. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 5:26 am by Susan Brenner
’ [Brocious] cannot “`(a) know[ ] the statement is false and it defames the other, (b) act[ ] in reckless disregard of these matters, or (c) act[ ] negligently in failing to ascertain them”’ when no evidence indicates that [he] knew about the statement in the first place. . . . [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 7:28 am by Russell Knight
The jurisdiction of such courts to hear and determine divorce matters is conferred only by statute. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 5:59 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Recent cases: Iovate: federal court settlement—routine diet supplement false advertising matters. [read post]