Search for: "State v. Plan" Results 2401 - 2420 of 29,594
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2016, 12:00 pm by Scott Birkey
No Density Bonus for this Coastal Project In Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 6:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 11:28 am by Priscilla Smith
”  It is well established in cases from Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 6:09 am
Watson Chair and Centennial Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma Law Center, on February 19, 2008,the United States Supreme Court accepted cert on Kennedy v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 7:16 am by Matthew Landis
Last week, I had the honor and privilege of being admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 11:00 am by Edith Roberts
Wade and then curtailed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
20 Oct 2021, 1:41 pm by Unknown
United States (Tribal Courts; Double Jeopardy; Court of Indian Offenses) Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 9:25 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently weighed in on the scope of the United States Supreme Court’s influential opinion in Stern v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 9:30 pm by Craig N. Oren
The EPA produces guidelines to help the states, and must either approve or disapprove each state’s plan. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 11:30 am
WalkerIn February of 2008, the state Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held in Douda v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 7:54 am by OLF
Second, Marselle took issue with Unum’s focus on her plans to move to another state. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 3:03 pm by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Premier Nutrition Corp., 49 F.4th 1300 (9th Cir. 2022) (Sonner II) (same plaintiff re-filed her case in state court (Alameda County); defendant's motion to enjoin state-court proceeding was denied due to uncertainty over jurisdictional issue) Guzman v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Employersyand fiduciaries of 401(k) plans should take note of the potential need to adopt a mid-year amendment to their plans to comply with new guidance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the need to timely amend their plans to comply with IRS recent guidance on when their plans must afford same-sex partners treatment equivalent to opposite-sex married couples issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of… [read post]