Search for: "STATE v CANAL"
Results 221 - 240
of 559
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2015, 6:22 pm
[1] Ohio in The State of Ohio v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 11:42 am
” The plaintiff in Hutson v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
The case is Gabriele v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
Would that be reviewable by a court, given that it involves a question of the validity to state law? [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 11:00 am
As the Supreme Court noted in Campbell v. [read post]
27 May 2015, 3:00 pm
The lawsuit, filed in state court and removed to federal court, alleges that the oil and gas operations of the defendants, in particular the construction and operation of canals located in the jurisdiction of the plaintiff levee boards, caused significant coastal erosion which in turn caused the destruction of thousands of acres of coastal lands. [read post]
15 May 2015, 1:29 pm
Associate Director & Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Flooding from Hurricane Katrina constitutes a taking of property without just compensation by the United States government, according to a recent decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Saint Bernard Parish Government, et al., v. [read post]
14 May 2015, 11:06 am
Similarly, a few days ago, a district court in Washington, DC, in United States v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 10:53 am
In the recent case of Depuy Orthopaedics v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:00 am
P. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
The Panama Canal Authority (Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, ACP) has been in complete control of the Panama Canal and its finances since the country took over control in 1999. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 11:26 am
For example, in Livingston v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 5:29 am
Case in point: In Black v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 2:52 am
Graham’s photograph “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, Jamaica” as it appeared on the Instagram feed of a third party, with the comment “Canal Zinian da lam jam” added by Mr. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 3:29 pm
This event will focus on the OHIM Community trade mark opposition decision in CANAL + v KABLEPLUS of 13 February 2014, where an opponent was put to proof of use of a mark which was not the basis of his opposition. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:01 pm
Last year, the Washington State Department of Health received 76 reports of V. parahaemolyticus-related illness. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 4:14 am
As discussed here, in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 10:18 pm
Scott v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 1:00 am
This case, Linde et al. v. [read post]
