Search for: "HAMILTON v. THE STATE"
Results 2221 - 2240
of 2,378
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2008, 6:44 pm
Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires that a plaintiff first give the state court an opportunity to adjudicate the issue of just compensation before seeking a declaration from a federal court that the state has failed to provide just compensation. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 7:21 pm
See United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 6:36 pm
We handle all NJ Municipal Court cases including DUI in the following NJ Municipal Courts: Hopewell Township, Ewing Township, Trenton, Lawrence Township, Hamilton, Pennington, and other Mercer County, Burlington County, and Camden County, NJ courts. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 6:53 am
See, for instance, Hamilton's famous argument in Rutgers v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 1:27 pm
The court then dismissed her pendent state-law claims without prejudice. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 10:51 am
From today's Santa Clara County (CA) new-case report:Katrina Petrini (in pro per) v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:54 pm
Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). [read post]
1 Mar 2008, 2:48 am
See United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 7:28 am
Here's a frustrating example: Riffert v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 1:05 pm
Hyle, using the law, ordered Porter out.A Hamilton County court backed Hyle, as did the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 10:21 am
See Danforth v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 4:27 am
Babcock and Wilcox Co. (1988) and State v. [read post]
16 Feb 2008, 6:20 pm
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City to the extent it requires property ownersto seek compensation in state courts to ripen a federal takings claim, where four Justices of this Court recognized in San Remo Hotel v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 2:03 pm
Kenneth Starr is Dean of Pepperdine University Law School and Former Solicitor General of the United States. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 11:08 am
Hamilton Bank o[Johnson City (1985) insofar as it requires property owners to seek compensation in state court to ripen a federal takings claim. [read post]
13 Feb 2008, 10:16 pm
City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005), stating that the ripeness rule of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. [read post]
12 Feb 2008, 4:50 am
In Kelo v. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 2:08 am
State v. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 3:11 pm
In United States v. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 4:26 am
United States v. [read post]
