Search for: "State v. W. D."
Results 1 - 20
of 5,014
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2024, 7:07 pm
S. 438, 448 (2010); United States v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:06 am
Shugerman, SEC v. [read post]
19 May 2024, 8:06 am
The State also relies on State v. [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am
Mular v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:15 am
§ 254(d) that would require federal Universal Service Fund contributions by ISPs: “[W]e believe that any decisions on whether and how to make BIAS providers contribute to USF funding are best addressed holistically in [] ongoing discussions of USF contribution reform, on a full record and with robust input from all interested parties, than in this proceeding. [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm
” In addition, if more states enact fair access laws, financial institutions may be required to comply with an increasing number of fair access laws that may be inconsistent from state to state. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 11:46 am
” Case No. 01001976380 | The People of the State of California v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
But in any event, I thought I'd mention what's going on here. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:11 am
But in any event, I thought I'd mention what's going on here. [read post]
1 May 2024, 1:21 pm
United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2023 WL 9023339, at *1 (D. [read post]
1 May 2024, 11:04 am
John W. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 3:12 pm
E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and… [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm
Moreover, at least three important precedents--United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 11:05 am
The FTC’s odds are bad but I’d give them maybe a 10% chance of winning? [read post]
