Search for: "State v. Michael J." Results 181 - 200 of 3,381
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2023, 8:30 am by Guest Author
”[4] Former Clinton Administration OIRA head Sally Katzen states that  “[t]he virtues of analysis—as robust as needed, commensurate with the significance of the decision being made—are, to me, self-evident: the regulator must think through, with all available data and in a systematic and disciplined way, all the intended and unintended consequences of a proposed rule. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 5:00 am
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Alex Touchet & Bradley J, Lingo, Failure to Accommodate: Assessing the Legacy of Trans World Airlines v. [read post]
29 May 2023, 9:03 am by INFORRM
On 22 May 2023, Tipples J heard an application in QRT v JBE QB-2022-000825. [read post]
23 May 2023, 12:58 am by INFORRM
Last week in the courts On 15 May 2023, Nicklin J continued to hear the trial of MBR Acres Ltd v Free MBR Beagles. [read post]
21 May 2023, 9:00 pm by Neil H. Buchanan and Michael C. Dorf
The most straightforward way to understand his thinking is apparently that the pendency of the inevitable lawsuits would so roil the financial markets that the economy would be damaged in the meantime—AND that doing so would be worse than the alternatives.Again, he is right that there would be a political crisis, and the days, weeks, or months that the world would spend waiting for a resolution would make the 2000 Bush v. [read post]
15 May 2023, 1:53 am by INFORRM
The cases include those brought by the Duke of Sussex, Nikki Sanderson, Fiona Wightman and Michael Turner. [read post]
14 May 2023, 9:00 pm by Neil H. Buchanan and Michael C. Dorf
(That essay also explains the math that we used to derive the 40,100 percent interest rate stated above.)Our overall bottom line does not change, however, because the fundamental objection to all of the gimmicks has less to do with the exact interaction of the words of the key statutes than it does with a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation. [read post]