Search for: "People v. House"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 12,995
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
21 Dec 2009, 4:12 pm
It makes a distinct contrast and counterpoint to R (Garbet) v Circle 33 Housing Trust and another [2009] EWHC 3153 (Admin) [our note here]. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 4:12 pm
It makes a distinct contrast and counterpoint to R (Garbet) v Circle 33 Housing Trust and another [2009] EWHC 3153 (Admin) [our note here]. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 6:10 am
They went from apartment to apartment to tell people to leave and look for stragglers. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 11:45 am
BH cited Bowman v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:20 am
While we know from Reno v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 8:10 am
Carvajal claimed that TCG’s toys are still stored at his house. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 2:16 pm
From today's order and accompanying opinion in Murthy v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:09 am
In State v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 2:36 pm
In order for Barnet to make sure that people aren’t waiting on their waiting list, it is apparently necessary to dramatically increase the length of time people must wait to get to wait on the waiting list in the first place. [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 Apr 2020, 6:40 pm
In Legacy Church, Inc. 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]
24 Jun 2016, 4:31 pm
The complaint (full text) in ACLU of Northern California v. [read post]
12 Dec 2015, 4:13 pm
Now in Medina v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 2:57 pm
(Rafael Henrique | Dreamstime.com)In today's ruling in Murthy v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:41 pm
In People v. [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]
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]
