Search for: "Burrow v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 201
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2007, 2:32 pm
L&Q -v- Ansell appears to state that, once the arrears and costs set out in the Possession Order have been paid, the occupier ceases to be a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in the sense of Burrows because their occupation is no longer subject to s.85 Housing Act 1985 - either in terms of execution of the order or possible application for variation of the order. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 3:19 am by Alex Woolgar
TheInfluence of Member State Submissions on Copyright Law” (forthcoming Modern LawReview)]This paper presented a really fascinating look at the "explosion" of copyright jurisprudence at the CJEU. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 3:48 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The majority of the Court (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden and Lord Burrows) allow Libya’s appeal on the first issue. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Furthermore, with respect to the Emerson defendants, it is undisputed that they were not present when the allegedly defamatory statement was made and, significantly, the complaint is bereft of any allegations setting forth a basis to hold them liable for Burrows’s statement (see Bostich v United States Trust Corp., 233 AD2d 193, 194). [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 4:00 am by Barry Sookman
Sarony in SCt Burrow-Giles case neve… -> RT @IPLawAlerts: Who Owns the Patent? [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 6:15 am by Dennis Crouch
  The Office also relies heavily on Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:37 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
POCA gives the courts the power to make a restraint order freezing the assets of an alleged criminal, with the overall aim of ensuring that the proceeds of crime can be confiscated by the State in the event a crime has been committed. [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 3:47 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Accordingly, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for violations of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC, 159 AD3d 872, 872; Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759). [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 10:30 am by Venkat
State law claims: Yunker’s state law claims also suffer from a variety of deficiencies. [read post]