Search for: "IN RE BARNET" Results 21 - 34 of 34
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2010, 3:29 pm by NL
On this basis an application for re-entry was not made. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:33 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Todd Barnet, The Uniform Registered State Land and Adverse Possession Reform Act, A Proposal for Reform of the United States Real Property Law, 12 Buff. [read post]
16 May 2010, 3:00 pm by Patrick Hindert
Michael Kelly succeeds Durbin as NSSTA's 2010-11 President and will be joined on the NSSTA Board of Directors by five newly (re) - elected Directors - Joseph Barnet; Len Blonder; Randy Dyer; James Ebel; and John Machir. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 8:06 am by Tessa Shepperson
Don’t say “central London” if you mean Camden, or Barnet. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
Barnet held an interim care order but applied for a declaration (under the inherent jurisdiction), that it was in the baby’s best interests to be vaccinated. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 8:51 am by Patrick Hindert
Perhaps it is time for NSSTA to re-think structured settlements and structured settlement education. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 12:23 pm by Giles Peaker
Re-wiring was not carried out for 6 months, during which time unsafe extension leads had to be used. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 12:23 pm by Giles Peaker
Re-wiring was not carried out for 6 months, during which time unsafe extension leads had to be used. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 1:40 pm by Giles Peaker
This is known as a provision for re-entry or forfeiture. [read post]
19 Feb 2022, 10:55 am by Giles Peaker
Significantly, Lord Slynn at paragraph 18 of Mohamed  (Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (2001) UKHL 57 ) re-considered the approach taken to ‘normal residence’ as discussed in R v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex p Nilish Shah (1983) 2 AC 309, 343, upon which Betts was based, and made clear that “the prima facie meaning of normal residence is a place where at the relevant time the person in fact resides…..and it is not appropriate to consider… [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 1:08 pm by Mark Weidemaier
A relatively recent case from the Second Circuit (In re Barnet, 737 F.3d 238) implies that the definitions in Chapter 11 might control eligibility in Chapter 15 as well, but Cooper and Walker lay out the counter-arguments in some detail. [read post]