John Glover port breve de Transg v John Andrew en que le Case fuit que le
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1664 |
| Date | 01 January 1664 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
97 cases
-
Fowler v Keegan Quarries Ltd
... ... have leave to apply to the court to have the case relisted for hearing ... 10 ... 14 John Keegan, the managing director of the Respondent ... ...
-
Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd
...That question is entirely distinct from the question in this case — whether the condition imposed on the subdivisions of the land on 17 May and 7 September 2000 had an extraneous object. In Lloyd v Robinson, this Court answered the question before it by finding that the imposition of the co......
-
Austral Pacific Group Ltd v Airservices Australia
...Federal jurisdiction — Whether s 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operated — Whether s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ‘picked up’ ss 6 and 7 of the LawReform Act 1995 (Q) — Whether ss 44 or 45 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ‘otherwise provided’ within th......
-
Karen Thames v National Irrigation Commission Ltd
...the Ministry of Finance as required for all contracts. (ii) The increase in compensation exceeded the government's approved guidelines of 15% and 7% for all new contracts. (iii) Contracts should not have been extended for a period of three years, but rather for a period not exceeding three ......
Get Started for Free