Search for: "People v. Brown (1985)"
Results 21 - 40
of 160
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2012, 3:44 am
Kay v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 8:14 am
People v. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
16 May 2008, 10:59 am
(1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 226-228, 220 Cal.Rptr. 712 [civil penalty under Civ.Code, § 1794]; Marshall v. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
BROWN v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm
In People v Brown, 253 Mich 537; 235 NW 245 (1931), the Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulations, but stressed that such regulations “cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 7:05 am
Elias, 544 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Brown v. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 7:05 am
Elias, 544 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Brown v. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 2:13 pm
Haven’t seen you around this blog for a while, CLP people. [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:23 am
Lignarolo, 770 F.2d 971, 981 (11th Cir. 1985). [read post]
4 May 2022, 7:29 am
” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.). [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 6:18 pm
” People v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
” Brown J. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm
City of Eau Claire (1985). [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 10:54 pm
-based Amgen ( AMGN - news - people ) said the Boston-based 1st U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
Brown v. [read post]
