Search for: "Williams v. Northern Natural Gas Company" Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The communications show how Williams Companies and TC Energy Corporation worked to boost political support for a number of natural gas infrastructure projects currently under federal review. [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 11:51 am by admin
Comment b to Section 433A circuitously and vacuously defines “distinct harms” as those “results which, by their nature, are more capable of apportionment. [read post]
Plaintiff (Riverside County Transportation Commission) pursued plans to extend Metrolink commuter rail across defendant’s (Southern California Gas Company) pipelines. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 2:05 pm
Moreover, and relatedly, it is directly a result of long-standing Republican efforts to make it harder for anyone not a mindlessly reflexive supporter of their political party to vote, in this case, “harder to naturalize and vote. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Lipton and Laura Schmidt, both associates at the White & Williams law firm. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Lipton and Laura Schmidt, both associates at the White & Williams law firm. [read post]
4 Jun 2017, 7:51 pm
The asymmetries run beyond the usual problem of state subsidies to that of states being tempted to tilt markets in favor of SOEs (producing a sort of systemic corruption in markets driven systems) to issues of interference with sovereignty when SOEs serve as the apex enterprise in global production chains.[18] The legal status of SOEs varies from being a part of government to stock companies with a state as a regular stockholder.[19] But its purpose has remained constant—national… [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 10:06 am by Schachtman
Comment b to this section rather circularly defines “distinct harms” as those “results which, by their nature, are more capable of apportionment. [read post]