Search for: "State v. Borough" Results 461 - 480 of 1,109
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2014, 3:46 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The court finds that the City's effort to address the negative secondary effects of adult establishments is not constitutionally objectionable under any of the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Renton v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:44 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey, heard 19 June 2014. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:58 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
  Also on Thursday 19 June 2014, the Court will hear the appeal of R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 3:27 pm by Giles Peaker
The Court of Appeal considered affordability and the proper approach to it in Farah v London Borough of Hillingdon [2014] EWCA Civ 359. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 2:39 pm by chief
That offer was contained in a letter which stated that: [W]e only have to offer you accommodation once. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 4:48 am by Giles Peaker
Room use also makes a brief appearance here, in conjunction with a reference to the Upper Tribunal decision in  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v BF (HB) [2014] UKUT 48 (AAC) [our report here]. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 3:30 pm by Giles Peaker
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Khan [2014] EWCA Civ 41 A rather odd second appeal from a s.204 appeal decision. [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 4:56 am by Giles Peaker
Trafford v Blackpool Borough Council [2014] EWHC 85 (Admin) Ms Trafford set up her personal injury practice in Blackpool in 2008. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:33 am by Charles Sartain
Borough Council of Oakmont and Range Resources – Appalachia LLC v. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 2:49 pm by Giles Peaker
Shah v Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 3657 (Admin) [Not on Bailii yet. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 1:39 pm by Giles Peaker
Both are Article 14 discrimination based, with disabilities meaning a bedroom could not be shared, one adult partners and the other a non-dependant requiring overnight care 2 mights a week.There is also an Upper Tribunal decision, LA v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (HB) [2013] UKUT 546 (AAC). [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 7:08 am by chief
In the meantime England have managed to retain (yay) and then lose (boo) the Ashes, so it just goes to show that there are worse things in the world than tardy blog writers.The issue in the two cases is neatly stated by Kitchin LJ at [2]:“The central issue on this appeal is whether the decisions in Manek and Desnousse continue to bind this court in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow… [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm by Giles Peaker
(G) v Barnet London Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 208 (HL(E))  establishes that it is not possible to carve out a section 17 duty to house families where children are already accommodated. [read post]