Search for: "Cobbe v. Cobbe"
Results 341 - 360
of 390
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2009, 5:55 am
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - NONCOOPERATION - EUO - SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE - NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PROPERTY INSURER - DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR - PUNITIVE DAMAGES LeBaron v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm
On that basis, should Mrs Bull wish to assert that the ’supplemental deed’ - the second charge - was void, she would be estopped from doing so - this is not incompatible with Cobb v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752, which Brighton had relied on. [read post]
22 Nov 2008, 8:30 pm
Venue is in Cobb County. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 12:40 pm
I needed to read Texas v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 10:33 pm
Cobb County. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:14 pm
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 29, 2008 Nader v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 6:35 am
In Pelphrey v. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 11:10 pm
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Pelphprey v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 3:45 pm
The Board relied on Dibbs v Campbell (1988) 20 HLR 374 and Bolnore Properties Lrd v Cobb (1996) 29 HLR 2002, as authority for the proposition that the 24 hr break between the tenancies was sufficient to mean that the new one did not follow immediately after the old one. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 11:28 am
Cobb, 2008 Ohio 5210, 2008 Ohio App. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 4:16 pm
Attorney Wade V. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 8:54 am
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd and Another House of Lords “Where the claimant had entered into an oral agreement with defendants in connection with the redevelopment of their property, their unconscionable behaviour in withdrawing from the agreement once planning permission for the redevelopment had been obtained did not result in a proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust in favour of the claimant. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 6:00 am
Yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in BATS v. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 8:40 am
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd and another [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] WLR (D) 293 “A claimant who had entered into an oral agreement with the defendants in respect of the redevelopment of a property had no claim against them in proprietary estoppel or constructive trust based on their unconscionable withdrawal from the agreement, but was entitled to a quantum meruit in respect of money and services which he had provided. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:16 pm
But anyone who, like me, is a bit of an equity hobbyist on the side, the House of Lords judgment in Yeoman's Row Management Limited (Appellants) and another v Cobbe (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 55 is a must read on proprietary estoppel and constructive trust. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 6:19 pm
Started on Doherty, but on closer inspection, the Lords have also given me R (On The Application of M) (Fc) V Slough Borough Council and R (On The Application of Heffernan) (Fc) V The Rent Service to deal with, and possibly also Yeoman’s Row Management Limited and Another V Cobbe. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 1:04 pm
Van Colle (administrator of the estate of GC (deceased)) and another (Original-Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent) Smith (Respondent) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (Appellant) [2008] UKHL 50 (30 July 2008) Caldarelli (Appellant) v Court of Naples (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from her Majesty's High Court of Justice) [2008] UKHL 51 (30 July 2008) R (on the application of M) (FC)… [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 1:10 pm
App. 2003) (Cobb, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2008, 8:23 pm
On the other side of the fence, In Kitzmiller v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 6:31 pm
Stephen Schuster of the Superior Court of Cobb County in Marietta, Georgia, and lawyers David Givelber and Nancy Lawler, both of Cohen, Pollock, Merlin & Small in Atlanta, took the audience through the esoteric but increasingly more important topic of challenging expert witnesses under the Daubert rule (named after one of the litigants in the case of Daubert v. [read post]
