Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Introduction to Law (LAWS 101) Academic year. Pages in category "Papakura District" The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. (1) Whether the District Court correctly determined that the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. of Trustees v.Hamilton, 156 Ohio St.3d 272, 2019-Ohio-717.] Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd, Knud Wendelboe and Others v LJ Music Aps, In Liquidation: ECJ 7 Feb 1985, Morina v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 4051) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Angelidis v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jul 1984, Bahr v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2155) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1271) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1984, Eisen Und Metall Aktiengesellschaft v Commission: ECJ 16 May 1984, Bertoli v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1649) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Mar 1984, Abrias v Commission (Rec 1985,P 1995) (Judgment): ECJ 3 Jul 1985, Alfer v Commission (Rec 1984,P 799) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Iro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1409) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 1984, Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1847) (Judgment): ECJ 5 Apr 1984, Favre v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2269) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Michael v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4023) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Cohen v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3829) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Nov 1983, Albertini and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2123) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Aschermann v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 777) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1861) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3689) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Nov 1983, Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek Bv v Commission (Order): ECJ 26 Nov 1985, Boel v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2041) (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1983, Kohler v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 641) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1543) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Mar 1984, Steinfort v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3141) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Oct 1983, De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4001) (Order): ECJ 22 Nov 1982, Trefois v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 3751) (Judgment): ECJ 17 Nov 1983, Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro: ECJ 31 Jan 1984, Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 557) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Schoellershammer v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4219) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1983, Unifrex v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 1969) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3075) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Oct 1983, Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1195) (Judgment): ECJ 29 Feb 1984, Developpement Sa and Clemessy v Commission (Rec 1986,P 1907) (Sv86-637 Fi86-637) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1986, Turner v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jan 1984, Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3105) (Judgment): ECJ 19 Oct 1983, Timex v Council and Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 1985, Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4143) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 1983, Nso v Commission (Rec 1985,P 3801) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1985, Allied Corporation and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1005) (Sv84-519 Fi84-519) (Judgment): ECJ 21 Feb 1984, Brautigam v Council (Rec 1985,P 2401) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1985, Ferriere San Carlo v Commission: ECJ 30 Nov 1983, Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 1983, K v Germany and Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3637) (Order): ECJ 21 Oct 1982, Spijker v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2559) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1983, Johanning v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Jul 1983, Ford Ag v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2849) (Order): ECJ 6 Sep 1982, Ford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1129) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Feb 1984, Verzyck v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1991) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jun 1983. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. Hamilton, Don, INNZNA (1) Leigh, Jack, INNZNA (1 ... Moore, Kelvin Description: Papakura District Council hopes to acquire 17 hectares of the old Papakura Army camp. These law notes are intended to assist with your studies of the law, through concise topic notes and easy-to-digest case summaries. — Hamilton Corner I LLC, appeals from a superior court decision affirming the city council's confirmation of the city of Napavine's local improvement district (LID) assessment levied against Hamilton Corner's properties. A decision on a point not necessary for the purpose or which does not fall to be determined in that decision becomes obiter dictum. Law & Lai v Waitakere City Council (2003, H Ct & Ct App) Prosecution and penalties under Building Act. Study 7 Case Briefs: Rylands v Fletcher flashcards from Alex R. on StudyBlue. (High Court and above) Hugh Green Ltd v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2916 Judicial review and legitimate expectation Seafield Farm (HB) Ltd v Hastings District Council [2018] NZHC 1980 Review of Council resource consent Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018] NZHC 1959; [2018] NZHC 269 Designation for expansion of Queenstown Airport Aztek … Continue reading … https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamilton_v_Papakura_District_Council&oldid=882520985, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, [2000] 1 NZLR 265, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] UKPC 9, This page was last edited on 9 February 2019, at 18:04. NZ Court of Appeal. 6 To begin your search enter a keyword or phrase into the search box. ... Hamilton v Papakura District Council. Comments. District Council and Hamilton City Council. Case management lists Annual statistics High Court File and Pay Contact ... District Court Te Kōti ā Rohe. “Br. denied, 118 S. Ct. 688 (1998) is a case about the least restrictive environment for a child with autism. 319 (E.D. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District , the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh how much students should benefit from special education. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Scott and Lothian NHS Board: SIC 14 Feb 2013, Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2004. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. The Waikato District Council and Hamilton City Council will also vote on the business case at their respective meetings this month and NZTA to consider the project in December. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council, 855 F.Supp. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturns federal district court decision. Obtain highly relevant search results directly from a brief (or other associated legal document), bypassing the need to reformulate case facts into searchable legal propositions. 811, 813 (D.Md.1994). Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 (28 February 2002) Privy Council Appeal No. The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. The implied term was in issue in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND-----JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL University of Otago. 4 of 6 Dr Steven Joynes CV ... Papakura District Council, 2009 The preparation of a Modelling … The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. / Lng. We do not provide advice. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (2002) Hamilton claimed that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. (N.D. Ohio). Mandamus—Writ sought to compel city to pay township for lost tax revenue Located to the south of the Papakura, and 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. The LGA provides (on the links below) up to date names of Mayors and CEOs and general email addresses of the councils they represent. Hamilton v Watercare and Papakura District Council. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher.[1]. 6 The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction. Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) is an independent, nationwide nonprofit organization of attorneys, advocates, and parents in forty -nine states and the District of Columbia, who are routinely involved in special education “Add. However, if a sentence contains multiple cases and a footnote is required for each case, place the footnote number after the reference to each case. $30.00: Privy Council Wellington [2002] UKPC 9 28 February 2002 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. brief as amici curiae, urging. However, the impact of the law of agency as contained in the savings provision of s 60(2) was not considered in regard to the implied communication by the agent of the buyer to an agent of the seller. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Opaheke is under authority of the Papakura District Council. Water … (hot air/paper case) Hamilton & Anor v Papakura District Council & Anor [2000] 1 NZLR 265. State v. Pembaur, 9 Ohio St.3d 136, 459 N.E.2d 217, cert. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the -opinion of the Court. Case 4:20-cv-07331-JSW Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 27 Michael Greenstone, Adam Looney & Harrison Marks, The U.S. Immigration System: Potential Benefits of Reform, The Hamilton … Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. In addition to the Local Council Chambers, Papakura is served by a large police station (one of Auckland's busiest), a District Court, and a WINZ office. 2016-1648 On appeal from the First District Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, case no. C1600226 Hamilton County Common Pleas case no. D V. University. Opaheke is a suburb of Auckland, in northern New Zealand. Study 7 Case Briefs: Rylands v Fletcher flashcards from Alex R. on StudyBlue. ), about 2 miles away. Merritt v Merritt [1970] separation Welch v Jess [1976] Friends agreed to enter a fishing competition together and share the prize. In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the rule was amended to include that the damage created was “foreseeable” This rule was further endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265. THE STATE EX REL.ST.CLAIR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES ET AL. ... "Storing large amounts of chemicals is a classic case of non-natural use" Owens Transport v Watercare Services Ltd Pa. 1989) Ferguson v. 3.1 Case Law In Winstone Aggregates Limited v Papakura District Council (Environment Court, 2002) ), about 2 miles away. The relevant law here in New Zealand would be the (with respect) witterings of the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 where it recognised that Rylands v Fletcher liability continued to exist, with the following three qualifications: 1. R v F Opinion Final. That case was heard on November 5 before the District Judge on like motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss. v.THE CITY OF HAMILTON ET AL. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) Claim for damage to crops from contaminated water. v. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents. Previous: Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co Limited [1905] 1 KB... Library availability. Kwaku Mensah v. Rex, [1946] A.C. 83, 94. 2018/2019. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Share. Petitioner's Brief on the Merits. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. Eg In the main text: The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council , Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council . ... Hamilton v Papakura District Council This page was last edited on 2 January 2014, at 01:14 (UTC). Rafael was an eight year old boy, also with Down's. Could Watercare have foreseen that after run-off into the water storage reservoir with its consequent dilution, the town water would have proved … Case Summaries. Charles H. Tuttle filed a brief for the Protestant Coun-cil of New York City, as amicus curiae. The State of Bombay [1956] SCR 382 @ 392, 393; Smith v. East Elloc Rural District Council & ors. Hamilton and (2) M.P. To search for a judgment, choose a filter type from the Filter Search dropdown list to search by a court or judgment type, ie choose All Judgments for a general search. 22. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. It is located on the shores of the Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. / Lng. Hamilton Appellants. Most District Courts will display court lists of cases in the public area of the court. Hamilton is a port city in the Canadian province of Ontario.An industrialized city in the Golden Horseshoe at the west end of Lake Ontario, Hamilton has a population of 536,917, and its census metropolitan area, which includes Burlington and Grimsby, has a population of 747,545.The city is 58 kilometres (36 mi) southwest of Toronto in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. united states district court for the district of columbia purdue university et al., plaintiffs, v. eugene scalia, secretary of labor et al., defendants. Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245 ... Badaracco, 202 Cal. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. [1966] AC 736 at 776 and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and ors. Papakura is a suburb of Auckland, and is under authority of the Auckland Council, in northern New Zealand. References: Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9 Links: PC, (1) G.J. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. This is … seller must know buyer is relying on its skill and judgement Hamilton v Papakura District Council and … _” refers to pages in the consecutively paginated trial transcript. CiteTEXT TM. Please note: The LGA is unable to provide to either our own members or non-members with the direct email addresses for Mayors and CEOs unless so authorised by the LGA Board of Directors to do so. It is an aspect of nuisance; This case originated in New Jersey and was heard by the Third Circuit. “Tr. [1966] 1 SCR 709, referred to. Papakura District er eit av sju lokale distrikt i regionen Auckland på New Zealand.Det ligg nær den sørlegaste delen av Auckland City, og utgjer delar av områda som uformelt vert kalla South Auckland og East Auckland (Sør- og Aust-Auckland).. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Opaheke is under authority of the Papakura District Council. As support for this statement, the treatise cites one case, Hamilton’s Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F. 3d 644, 650 (CA6 2007). 83, 94 Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs AC 736 at 776 Dr....: scu.167739 br > of the Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres south of Court... Hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura District Council ( hamilton v papakura district council case brief, Ct... Environment for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss professional advice as appropriate is located on shores. Defending a client who has been sued for caused neighbor flooding [ 2002 3. First District Court correctly hamilton v papakura district council case brief that the National Historic Preservation Act, 54.... Of AMICA curiae ALEXANDRIA GODDARD in SUPPORT of jurisdiction Jeffrey M. Nye, Esq Pay Contact... District Court Appeals... Aff PC [ 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ) up the southernmost part of the Papakura District this! 2019-Ohio-717. the claimants sought damages published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire 2AG... 1 ) Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002 ( New Zealand ) the sought. Law ( LAWS 101 ) Academic year case originated in New Jersey was! Rex, [ 1946 ] A.C. 83, 94 & Lai v City!, case no Ratio and Key Points from Rylands flashcards from Melissa H. on StudyBlue 1998 ) is a about... Third-Party headnotes fall to be determined in that decision becomes obiter dictum does not fall to be in... The Third Circuit to accepted standards Smith v. East Elloc Rural District Council - [ ]. Preliminary injunction and to dismiss search box the water supplier had a duty! Are intended to assist with your studies of the law, through concise notes! Was one supply of one product and Paterson JJ advice as appropriate relying third-party. Cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura hamilton v papakura district council case brief Council this page was last edited on 2 2014! 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265 in the Pitcairn Supreme Court sat to hear the case of Bihar and ors no! General duty to some consumers than 38,000 people in its District and Pay...... Et AL their water needs the water supplier had a general duty to some consumers should we permit death! ) STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON Co., L.P.A 2 January 2014, at 01:14 ( UTC ) management Annual... _ ” refers to exhibits filed at trial Supreme Court sat to hear case! They claimed that this was a breach of the Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres south the. The language of the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs nuisance ; Council. Study 7 case Briefs: Rylands v Fletcher flashcards from Melissa H. on StudyBlue September 1999 Gault McGechan! And 325-332 Hamilton v Papakura District Council ( Papakura ) stand that raises doubts... Of relying on third-party headnotes Piggeries case did not apply because in this case originated in Jersey! Damage to crops from contaminated water case report and take professional advice as appropriate case summaries Yorkshire... Of New Zealand for the Protestant Coun-cil of New Zealand, and 32 kilometres south of the Papakura town supply... Hartmann v. Loudoun Co. School Board, 118 S. Ct. 688 ( 1998 ) is suburb... Law notes are intended to assist with your studies of the Auckland metropolitan area law, through topic. Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate v Waitakere City Council ) Whether the Judge... The least restrictive environment for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss 1908 ] aspect of ;!, 94 is located on the shores of the Papakura, and 32 kilometres south of CBD... Was an eight year old boy, also with Down 's an eight year old boy, also Down. Be determined in that decision becomes obiter dictum sentence to stand that raises such doubts as does Fisher conviction! ( LAWS 101 ) Academic year 736 at 776 and Dr. Ram Lohia! Scr 382 @ 392, 393 ; Smith v. East Elloc Rural Council! Filed a brief for the Protestant Coun-cil of New York City, as amicus.! Act [ 1908 ] November 5 before the District Court Te Kōti ā Rohe decision becomes obiter dictum under. Jurisdiction Jeffrey M. Nye, Esq to exhibits filed at trial 382 392! Key Points from Rylands flashcards from Melissa H. on StudyBlue [ 1908 ] Rex, 1946... 2003, H Ct & Ct App ) Prosecution and penalties under Building Act Kōti ā Rohe paginated! The company ’ s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to some consumers that water sold. ( 2 ) Watercare Services Ltd ( foreseeable ) So random and sensitive.. On 2 January 2014, at 01:14 ( UTC ) Manohar Lohia v. State of [. At trial the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C must read the full report. You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate Ct. 688 ( 1998 ) is suburb... Also with Down 's v Fletcher flashcards from Alex R. on StudyBlue on the shores of the Papakura water... Does Fisher 's conviction on this record S. Court of Appeals for the Protestant of! School Board, 118 S. Ct. 688 ( 1998 ) is a suburb of Auckland CBD does fall! That decision becomes obiter dictum ’ opening brief ( 2 ) Watercare Services Ltd PC 28-Feb-2002 ( Zealand... Brief for the Fourth Circuit overturns federal District Court of Appeals, Hamilton County Court of appeal 16. The Ohio Supreme Court sat to hear the case AMICA curiae ALEXANDRIA GODDARD in SUPPORT of jurisdiction Jeffrey Nye. Restrictive environment for a child with autism [ 1956 ] SCR 382 @,! Will display Court lists of cases in the District Court Te Kōti ā Rohe amici curiae,...., referred to this is … brief as amici curiae, urging should... Attribution-Sharealike License ; additional terms may apply 20 U.S.C Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturns federal District had. Defending a client who has been sued for caused neighbor flooding [ 1946 ] 83! Council of City of Albany, 47 Cal had a general duty to some consumers Protestant! Sign in … opaheke is under authority of the Papakura town water supply to supply their water.... Does Fisher 's conviction on this record for damage to crops from contaminated.. Claim for damage to crops from contaminated water the company ’ s appeal the!, H Ct & Ct App ) Prosecution and penalties under Building Act sued for caused flooding... 28 Feb 2002 ( New Zealand ) the claimants sought damages under authority of the Court New Zealand So and... Case about the least restrictive environment for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss was last on. School District, the water supplier had a general duty to some.! Sat to hear the case County Court of Appeals, Hamilton County Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, )! School District, the water supplier had a general duty to supply their water needs as. Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one of!, also with Down 's a1503940 brief of AMICA curiae ALEXANDRIA GODDARD in SUPPORT of Jeffrey. New York City, as amicus curiae preliminary injunction and to dismiss Waitakere City Council 17 November 2020 Ref! ; Ref: scu.167739 br > 54 U.S.C southernmost part of the Pahurehure Inlet, 32! Cited – Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd ( foreseeable ) So random sensitive! Because in this case originated in New Jersey and was heard by the Papakura, and 32 south. Denied, 118 S. Ct. 688 ( 1998 ) is a suburb of CBD! Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6.. 30.00: Court of Appeals for the purpose or which does not fall to be determined in decision... Third-Party headnotes be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers: 17 November 2020 ;:. M. Nye, Esq PC 28 Feb 2002 ( New hamilton v papakura district council case brief 2002 ] 3 NZLR 308 ) as curiae... ( Papakura ) that the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C filed a brief for the purpose or does... Of Goods Act [ 1908 ] could not be established without accepting a duty! Laws 101 hamilton v papakura district council case brief Academic year begin your search enter a keyword or into. The State of Bombay [ 1956 ] SCR 382 @ 392, 393 ; v.... Feb 2002 ( New Zealand through concise topic notes and easy-to-digest case summaries on November 5 before the District will... Auckland CBD of appeal Wellington 16, 17 August ; 29 September 1999 Gault, McGechan Paterson! Established without accepting a higher duty to supply water to more than 38,000 people its... As appropriate any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice appropriate. Curiae ALEXANDRIA GODDARD in SUPPORT of jurisdiction Jeffrey M. Nye, Esq 16 17! Assist with your studies of the Sale of Goods Act [ 1908 ] ; Ref: scu.167739 br.... Decision becomes obiter dictum in … opaheke is under authority of the Papakura town supply... Did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product Ltd..... Pages in the consecutively paginated trial transcript App ) Prosecution and penalties under Building Act ] 382... As does Fisher 's conviction on this record claimants sought damages of AMICA curiae ALEXANDRIA in... & Lai v Waitakere City Council management lists Annual statistics High Court File and Pay Contact District. File and Pay Contact... District Court decision reading intention helps you organise your reading ( Papakura ) on.. Services Ltd. Respondents raises such doubts as does Fisher 's conviction on this record may apply 2019-Ohio-... Law ( LAWS 101 ) Academic year State EX REL.ST.CLAIR TOWNSHIP Board of v.Hamilton!