Search for: "Givens v. Street" Results 1 - 20 of 3,484
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2010, 1:40 am by sally
Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 887; [2010] WLR (D) 200 “In order to avoid absurdity, s 81 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and regs 3 and 4 of the Street Works (Maintenance) Regulations 1992 had to be given a purposive interpretation, meaning that the power of a street authority to undertake emergency works under reg 4 was conditional upon an inspection having been undertaken under reg 3 only where… [read post]
29 May 2007, 12:47 pm
SCOTUSBLOG is the NY Times, or maybe - given its focus on one particular field - the Wall Street Journal, of the legal blog world. [read post]
29 Dec 2013, 11:20 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a new hearing this past Friday in Joffe v. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 4:42 pm by David Klein
Given the size of the proposed class, the ramifications of class certification were enormous. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 5:36 am by Ted Frank
Given the space limitations of a newspaper op-ed page, it is perhaps understandable that the discussion does not quite persuasively distinguish the 7-2 South Dakota v. [read post]
1 Feb 2025, 12:36 am by Frank Cranmer
Background In Sleeper v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 151 (KB), Mr Ian Sleeper was a street preacher. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 4:05 am by Frank Cranmer
Therefore, considering the judgment Sedley LJ in Redmond-Bate v DPP and the reforms to the Public Order Act 1986 ss 4A – 5 threshold, the law has established a clear framework. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 9:05 pm by Peter S. Margulies
A similar dynamic has occurred following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 1:46 pm
You'd think the timing on this case might have given plaintiffs a fair amount of hope. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 7:16 pm
 The short of it is that under the Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Clark v. [read post]