Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 2121 - 2140
of 61,244
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2017, 5:30 am
CPLR Article 86, the Equal Access to Justice Act, applies in cases brought against the State for alleged unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights LawKimmel v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03689, Court of AppealsUnder the Equal Access to Justice Act [EAJA; CPLR Article 86] under certain circumstances a court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a suit against the State. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 2:35 am
Finally, issues (iv) and (v) were left for future determination and further submissions. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:26 am
STATE V. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 6:03 pm
United States, 556 U.S.___ (2009) and Arizona v. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 7:39 am
On one level, United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:50 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 5:50 am
In a previous post I erroneously stated that the appeal of Canwest Mediaworks Publications v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 2:15 pm
(SC88487, Jun. 12, 2007), clarified that state's meaning of the term "blight" as a justification for taking property by eminent domain: (1) The evidence presented was insufficient to show the social liability necessary to support a finding of blight. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 6:00 am
One of the cases that the Supreme Court denied was Lincoln v. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 3:43 pm
Similarly, the Cameron v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 12:09 pm
In granting that request, in Mendoza v. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 9:23 am
But what does it mean for California law firms? [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
In Panetti v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 6:47 am
The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday in Kansas v. [read post]
24 Jun 2023, 8:30 am
V. [read post]
17 Aug 2013, 8:27 am
If correct, then this means that Marsh v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 3:43 pm
Her initial reaction was the same one as the Court of Appeal.Mind you, I think I prevailed in the resulting argument (er, I mean, "discussion") about whether her initial impression was right. [read post]
22 May 2011, 11:20 pm
And the word “promptly” in that context means that one can bowl out a claim even if it is commenced within those 3 months: see the Court of Appeal in Finn-Kelcey. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 1:08 pm
The most celebrated evidentiary modification was upgrading the required fault element from negligence to an intentional state of mind, which the Court called “actual malice,” meaning the defendant knew the statement was factually false or acted recklessly. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 12:46 pm
In a major victory for marijuana rights in California, the state supreme court has declined to hear an appeal from prosecutors on the overturned conviction of a marijuana collective operator in People v. [read post]
