Search for: "STEWART v. STATE" Results 61 - 80 of 2,294
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2023, 12:37 am by Frank Cranmer
Revd Paul Williamson in court again In July 1997, the Revd Paul Williamson was made the subject of a Civil Proceedings Order as a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.42(1A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings), primarily as a result of a series of proceedings arising from his opposition to the ordination of women: see R v HM Attorney-General ex parte Reverend Paul Stewart Williamson [1997] EWHC Admin 691. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” With regard to plaintiff’s account stated claim, defendant asserted, without corroboration, that she had objected to the invoices at various points, but those “self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated” (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; accord Schlenker v Cascino, 124 AD3d at 1153). [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 4:36 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Federal Republic of Germany Daniele Amoroso & Riccardo Pavoni, Stergiopoulos v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:25 am by INFORRM
Canada On 20 March 2023, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the plaintiffs to pay the reasonable costs of the defendant on a full indemnity basis, in the case of Mawhinney v Stewart, 2023 BCSC 419, [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 11:57 am by John A. Emmons, Avery Schmitz
District Court judge authorizing the use of a geofence warrant in the Jan. 6 prosecution case United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2023, 4:38 am by SHG
It is extremely difficult to square the state bar’s version with what the prosecutor said, as recounted in Miller v Pate. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 5:58 am by Stewart Baker
[I only count two votes to ratify Big Tech's sweeping immunity claims] The Supreme Court's oral argument in Gonzalez v. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 11:57 am by Michael Oykhman
Conversion is “an act of interference with a [motor vehicle] inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it” (see: R v Stewart, 1988 CanLII 86 (SCC), [1988]  SCR 963). [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 9:54 am by Josh Blackman
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 5:34 pm by Stewart Baker
Finally, we make quick work of a few more stories: This week's oral argument in Gonzalez v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 4:54 pm by Stewart Baker
Gus shares a few thoughts on the State of the Union address and the brief but pointed calls for antitrust and data privacy reform. [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 7:36 am by INFORRM
On the same day, Chamberlain J heard an application in the case of VLM v LPB. [read post]