Sentences with phrase «owners taken to court»

Not exact matches

Behind the scenes, though, an explosive court case was brewing: a proposed $ 1.95 - billion class action lawsuit, alleging that the company's historic shift to frozen products had taken a significant bite out of store owners» cash registers.

The Christian owners of a bakery found to have discriminated against a gay rights activist take their case to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Truett - Hurst Sues Landlord in Winery Lease Dispute: Publicly owned startup vintner Truett - Hurst has taken the owner of its Russian River Valley winery and tasting room to court, claiming the action is necessary to prevent eviction ahead of what the wine company speculates could be a move to position the property for sale...

Though Tellem does not blame the union for consenting to the escrow tax — «Billy Hunter did a remarkable job of holding the players together for as long as he did» — he believes the union should consider decertifying in three years and taking the owners to court.

The shop's owner took Bryan to court, demanding the card back or damages.

Seemingly cut out of negotiations after the farm owner made a surprise offer to sell the land to the Cary Park District, Lake in the Hills officials will consider the options of working out a new agreement with Cary or taking the legal tangle to court.

Last December, Sung, 50, and Yam, 35, were indicted for allegedly taking bribes from some karaoke club owners in exchange for tipoffs to drug raids, according to criminal court complaints and law enforcement officials.

A vote by property owners in the 164 - acre section of the Town of Monroe to annex their land into the Village of Kiryas Joel may have passed earlier this week, but no transfer can take place until a State Supreme Court judge rules on the challenges to the environmental review.

Most described property owners refusing to make repairs to their units, taking them to housing court, offering themselves and neighbors buyouts to leave and making unnecessary major capital improvements to the buildings in order to raise the rent.

County officials also pointed out that 1,447 property owners or landlords who failed to voluntarily comply with lead abatement in their properties were taken to Housing Court.

The owner had to pursue the matter through court, and the process took seven months before she could get Rita back.

Owners can be taken to court if they don't look after their pets properly and face a prison sentence of up to six months, and a fine of up to # 20,000.

Washington, DC — In a federal court ruling handed down today, the Cook County, IL, pet sale ordinance scheduled to take effect October 1 has been delayed pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by several of the affected store owners.

Instead of fining owners and waiting for the next time Rover gets loose (or is turned loose), they can work with the courts to require that owners attend a responsible dog ownership session or take Rover to obedience school.

«Miami - Dade county has wrongfully taken alleged pit bull dogs away from their owners to kill them without seeking court order or advising the owner that killing of their pet can not be completed without court order. As a result, Miami - Dade County has committed countless acts in violation of this ordinance and has deprived countless residents of their property without due process of law.»

Agents immediately seized the animals and brought them back to the Humane Society for assessment.The owner was insistent that he wanted his dogs back however, our investigations team was determined that that was not going to happen and did everything within their power to ensure the dogs were kept safe and were well cared for until after taking the owner to court.

Lapeer County Sheriff's Detective Jason Parks said the dogs were brought in by their owner, a 45 - year - old man, and authorities will seek to have the dogs destroyed if he relinquishes his rights to them or they will take the matter to court if he fights to keep them.

SCOTUS Sides with L.A. Motel Owners A group of motel owners in Los Angeles took a case all the way to the Supreme Court — anOwners A group of motel owners in Los Angeles took a case all the way to the Supreme Court — anowners in Los Angeles took a case all the way to the Supreme Court — and won!

All interactions with players, staff, owner and press take place through real - time discussion and provide an opportunity to make decisions that will have ripple effects both on and off the court.

Some buildings are such bird killers that activists are taking their owners to court; Eco Justice and Ontario Nature are suing Menkes Developments, the owners of a big glassy spec office building in the East end of Toronto where over 7,000 birds have died in the last decade.

On March 18, in Keewatin v. Ontario (Natural Resources) the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that in exercising its rights and powers as beneficial owner, Ontario is not subject to federal consent when taking up Crown land for resource projects.

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings... Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action... But the Court also decided long ago that land can be «taken» in the constitutional sense by physical invasion or occupation by the government, as occurs when the government floods land permanently or recurrently.

The court held (to paraphrase) that while the phone owner assumed an expectation of privacy, he did not exhibit the expectation of privacy because he did not take precautions to prevent pocket - dialing.

According to court records, he has been charged with receiving known stolen property and with taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.

For example, in Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank the English Court of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise laCourt of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lacourt (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lawful.

Before you decide to take a property owner to court because of an injury, it's important to be sure that you have a case.

Such a case may start from Ukraine in terms of negotiations, then proceed judicially in Greece, security measures (ship arrest) may be taken in Romania; when it comes to enforcement of the judgement, and a Russian insurer is involved refusing to pay under LOI issued for release of the ship in Romania, you have to initiate enforcement proceedings in Russia, whereas the said vessel may have been arrested by the claimants for the second time in Bangladesh, on the same claim against the new ship owner, where the court decides that it will hear the case against the latter on the merits.

If you get found and the owner tells you to leave (whether or not they get a court order), or if they say «I'll let you stay for a while», or they do a bit of landscaping, then you can't take the land (or, the clock restarts).

The mammoth statutory damages award, coupled with the levy of punitive damages, sends a strong signal that Canadian courts are willing to protect and enforce owners» rights and punish those who take steps to circumvent these protective measures.

Brott v United States 858 F3d 425 (6th Cir 2017)(Amici Curiae National Federation of Independent Business, Cato Institute and Southeastern Legal Foundation)(rejecting claim that property owners were entitled to jury trial in an Article III court because Congress permitted to bestow exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over takings claims seeking more than $ 10,000 in the Court of Federal Clcourt because Congress permitted to bestow exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over takings claims seeking more than $ 10,000 in the Court of Federal ClCourt of Federal Claims)

If a reasonable person would have noticed the hazard and taken steps to fix it, but the property owner did not do so within a reasonable amount of time, the owner may be held responsible by the court.

You can take the owner of the ship to court (an «in personam» claim) or make a claim against the ship itself (an «in rem» claim).

The court noted the onus is on a business owner to substantiate that not all of the pretax profits should be added to wages and draws taken out to come to a correct total.

If you really want to stay to the bitter end, know that the new owner will have to first serve you with a 30 - day «notice to quit» before going to court to obtain an eviction order, and the court eviction process typically takes a couple of months before you absolutely have to move.

This is positive for premises owner defendants in take - home asbestos cases in the sense that Justice Aldrich did not create a Court of Appeals split on the issue of the duty owed by premises owners to take - home plaintiffs, but as the Beckering Court noted, the issue will not be resolved with any certainty until the California Supreme Court makes its decision.

Here, the court explained that is exactly what the truck's owner did when he asked the passenger to take over control of the truck while he took a nap.

~ Even where a certificate of pending litigation is found to have been filed for improper reasons, the court may not find abuse of process if the property owner is not affected by it and does not take steps to have it removed.

Mike Gardner, partner at Wedlake Bell, says the English courts have historically taken a robust approach to brand owners complaining about rivals» advertising.

Some vehicle owners even hire an attorney or take their claim to small claims court (although in many cases, high attorney fees will wipe out any money saved from the claim).

Next steps: write to American States Insurance president, President: Gary Richard Gregg (jhttp: / / www.insuranceproviders.com/companies/american-states-insurance-company/); file a complaint with New York state insurance department against American states insurance; take the driver and owner of the vehicle that crashed into me to court.

In a blockchain with known participants (asset owners and block - adders), competitive mining and confirmations is less important than in an anonymous public blockchain, because if someone tried to double spend, you know who they are and can take them to court for attempted fraud.

Owners of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus units afflicted by the alleged design defect dubbed «Touch IC Disease» won't get much aid from the Genius Bar, but a U.S. law firm is looking to help users take Apple to court.

A Federal Court of Appeal judge says that TREB «has raised at least one serious issue with respect to the possibility that the tribunal's order failed to take adequate consideration of property owners» privacy rights.»

Moms and dads now having to take on the role of property manager may not be prepared for the risks even seasoned landlords need to manage frequently; tenants that won't pay rent and refuse to vacate, serial trouble tenants that tie up landlords with appeals, complex collection laws that delay enforcement and a Landlords and Tenant Tribunal favouring tenants over rental property owners because the courts perceive landlords as big business owners with deep pockets.»

Attached house owner SCREWED a 4 - tonne a / c unit to the (brick) wall of the longer house, and vibrated the kitchen wall so bad, the vibration reverberated through the whole half of the house and made the water in the bathtub vibrate in the room above; lawyers argued; city finally forced owner to remove a / c unit but had to threaten to take owner to court first; bad neighbours resulting, so sad.

The Supreme Court ruled that since the state knew that the owner hadn't received any of the certified letters it had sent, the commissioner should have taken additional steps to notify Jones.

What these cases illustrate is that Ontario courts are more than willing to take drastic steps in the face of unreasonable, dangerous and intransigent misconduct by owners, particularly where it impinges on safety or on the enjoyment by others of their individual units or the condo development as a whole.

In a recent editorial published in the Cape Argus, the chairman of Rawson opined that «homebuyers, banks and tenants all need to take action to protect themselves against the effects of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment that property owners can be held liable for historical municipal debts dating back up to 30 years.»

The Court found that while the State's process for providing notice would likely succeed with most taxpayers, in this instance the State had actual knowledge that the Owner had very likely not received notice about the State's intention to sell his property and it took no further action.

To briefly summarize, a California appellate court ruled that building owners and operators have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect patrons from criminal acts, even absent prior criminal activity on the premiseTo briefly summarize, a California appellate court ruled that building owners and operators have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect patrons from criminal acts, even absent prior criminal activity on the premiseto take reasonable precautions to protect patrons from criminal acts, even absent prior criminal activity on the premiseto protect patrons from criminal acts, even absent prior criminal activity on the premises.