Search for: "Strong v. State" Results 2361 - 2380 of 14,817
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2009, 3:45 pm
In United States v. 480.00 Acres of Land, No. 07-13584 (Feb. 11, 2009), the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), held "in order for a fact finding body to ignore a regulation in calculating 'just compensation' for a given piece of property, the landowner must show that the primary purpose of the regulation was to depress the property value of land or that the ordinance was enacted with the specific… [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
  It is said that it should have applied the approach in Galloway v Telegraph ([2006] EWCA Civ 17) and should only have overturned the judge’s decision on balancing conflicting Convention rights if it was “plainly wrong”. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
It has been forcefully argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Jameel v Wall Street Journal ([2007] 1 AC 359).  [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 8:50 am by Resnick Law Group, P.C.
A strong tech industry can bring many benefits to state and local economies, but the tech industry also has its share of problems. [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 3:35 am
But it seems fair enough to let the people decide whether they want a constitutional right, at the state level, that gives them back approximately what they had under the Supreme Court case law before the overruling of Roe v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 2:24 pm by PaulKostro
Notwithstanding this State’s strong policy in favor of arbitration, an arbitration provision is only enforceable if it “constitutes a valid contract to arbitrate. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 6:11 am by Magdaleen Jooste
  On December 14, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. [read post]