Search for: "INGE v. OWENS" Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2018, 12:31 pm
  He has a point, and he wants to make it.)Judge Owens characterizes the majority opinion as "hold[ing] that the Due Process Clause does not mandate government-funded counsel for C.J.L.G, an accompanied minor. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:35 pm by INFORRM
Riley v Murray, then, sits uncomfortably with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926,  which was handed down on the same day. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 6:31 am by Andrew Dickinson
In Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau [2010] EWHC 231 (QB), Mr Justice Owen applied Rome II’s provisions to reach the conclusion that the compensation to be paid by the MIB (acting as the UK’s compensation body under the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) to the claimant as a result of an accident in a Spanish shopping centre car park in December 2007 in which the other driver was German (and uninsured) should be assessed in accordance with Spanish law, as the law of the… [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 10:07 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624 (Fed. [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 4:30 am by Unknown
” Whittaker Corp., supra, 289 NLRB at 933 (1988) (quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 5:18 am
Owens, 292 Ga. 380, 738 S.E.2d 56 (Georgia Supreme Court 2013).Warren v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 2:26 pm by David Smith
R (Baron, Peat & Othrs) v Hyndburn District Council, Administrative Court, Manchester District Registry, 14 April 2011 (Not on BAILII as yet)J has previously alluded to this case involving an application for permission for Judicial Review of a local authority decision to make a selective licensing designation. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 11:04 am by David Cosgrove
See Armstrong, 2004 WL 1745774, at *10 (holding “payments to participants in accordance with plan terms not to be transactions within the meaning of [Section 406(a)]”); Owen v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (1991), held, "[i]t is only reasonable therefore that as between the injured user and the one who places the product on the market the latter should bear the loss. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
Instead, antecedent statutory provisions limit the scope of a court’s §§3 and 4 powers to stay litigation and compel arbitration “accord[ing to] the terms” of the parties’ agreement. [read post]