Search for: "State v. Hazard"
Results 201 - 220
of 3,339
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2014, 3:00 am
An appeal followed; the case is State of Arizona v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 2:00 am
The case is Community Association for the Restoration of the Environment, Inc., et al., v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 9:00 am
The case, Department of Toxic Substances Control v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 6:25 am
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Hart v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 1:42 pm
It is always dangerous to hazard a guess as to how a court rule. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
See Broussard v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 4:49 pm
United States (Federal Tort Claims Act)Hanson v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 7:45 am
In Dumas v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 8:00 am
This precedent did not hold for New York State bakers in Lochner v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 10:01 am
Environmental Protection Agency v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:18 pm
In Craig v. [read post]
