OrderCourt Order • June 30th, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Order • August 2nd, 2012
Present: STRATAS J.A.Court Order • October 26th, 2020
BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Appellants and THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ABC, DE [BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ABC], AND FG [BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ABC], MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI, HALA MAHER HOMSI, KARAM MAHER HOMSI AND REDA YASSIN AL NAHASS and NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFA Respondents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISIONCourt Order • November 7th, 2013
MOOREVIEW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND OTHERSCourt Order • October 14th, 2014
10-Aug-20Court Order • August 10th, 2020
THE APPLICATION of Deloitte Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as Court-appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) of the assets and undertakings of Grabhers Last Stand Bison Ranch Ltd., and the assets of Dwayne Grabher and Chelsea Grabher (collectively, the “Debtors”) with such assets as enumerated in the Order under which it was appointed, coming on for hearing at Prince George, British Columbia, on the 10th day of August 2020; AND ON HEARING Kimberley Robertson, counsel for the Receiver, and those other counsel listed on Schedule “A” hereto, and no one appearing for the remaining parties although duly served; AND UPON READING the material filed, including the Report of the Receiver dated July 28, 2020 (the “Report”);
BETWEENCourt Order • July 29th, 2019
OrderCourt Order • March 26th, 2015
ORDER PENAL NOTICECourt Order • August 7th, 2007 • London
IF you the within named Defendants and/or Protestors disobey this Order you may be held to be in contempt of Court and may be imprisoned or fined or have your assets seized
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CLAIM NO. 2009HCV06432Court Order • June 29th, 2011
BETWEEN OLINT TCI CORPORATION LIMITED CLAIMANT AND (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) DAVID SMITH 1ST DEFENDANT AND TRACEY-ANN SMITH 2ND DEFENDANT AND GILBERT WAYNE SMITH 3RD DEFENDANT
APPENDIX ACourt Order • January 18th, 2019
However, I disagree completely with the majority on the next issue. The majority creates federal common law to hold the successors liable for Findlay’s pension obligations. The Successors argue that 29 U.S.C. § 1369 enumerates the only circumstances where the PBGC can impose Termination Liability on the successor to a plan sponsor. The Successors are right.
HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCILCourt Order • December 9th, 2021
Submitted: June 13, 2018Court Order • July 3rd, 2018
This 9th day of July 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the record on appeal, it appears that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its October 12, 2017 Memorandum Opinion.1
MARYLAND ECON OMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al.Court Order • September 11th, 2003
ORDERED, by the Court of Appea ls of Maryland, that the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgom ery County be, and it is here by, AFFIRMED. Costs to be paid by the Appellan t. Mand ate to issue forthwith.
Baykeeper, EPA Reach Agreement in Sewage Lawsuit Against Seven East Bay CitiesCourt Order • March 14th, 2011
(Bay Area, CA) San Francisco Baykeeper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Water Boards today announced an agreement in a lawsuit over illegal sewage spills by seven East Bay municipalities. The resulting enforceable Court Order requires major improvements to the sewage collection systems of Oakland, Emeryville, Piedmont, Berkeley, Alameda, Albany, and the Stege Sanitary District, which serves Kensington, El Cerrito and the Richmond Annex section of Richmond.
Practice Direction 61 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIACourt Order • May 18th, 2020
The Order: Having read and considered heads of argument filed by both parties and having read the pleadings and other documents filed of record: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The notice of intention to amend replication filed by the plaintiff on 25 November 2019 and the amended replication filed by the plaintiff on 16 December 2019 are improperly before court and are hereby struck out. 2. The plaintiff is directed to pay the defendant’s costs occasioned by defendant’s opposition to the delivery of the abovementioned documents. Such costs are to include costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. It is further directed that the costs ordered herein shall not be limited by the provisions of rule 32(11). 3. The matter is postponed to 20 May 2020 at 15:15 for status hearing alternatively for allocation of trial dates in respect of special pleas. 4. The parties are directed to file a joint status report on or before 14 May 2020
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICESCourt Order • February 20th, 2022
