Search for: "Land v. State" Results 2561 - 2580 of 13,218
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2009, 12:16 pm
Elexco Land Services, Inc. et al (Susquehanna County Pa March 3, 2009) that had been pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
Wyoming, in which the court held that “an old treaty allowing Native Americans to hunt on federal land is still valid. [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 8:14 pm by Record on Appeal
On March 27, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Duffy in Charles Mitchell Hart v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 9:19 am by nflatow
One of the arguments in the amicus brief I filed on Perich’s behalf concerned the Court’s leading free exercise precedent, Employment Division v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
ARTICLE V The requested Party shall not be bound to extradite its own nationals, but it shall have the power to extradite them in its discretion. [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]
28 Nov 2007, 1:27 am
United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (government invited public recreational boaters to enter a private lagoon) (a case litigated by my Damon Key colleagues Charlie Bocken and Diane Hastert, by the way), Loretto v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 9:23 am by Arthur F. Coon
On December 11, 2019, the California Supreme Court by a 7-0 vote granted the petition for review of Butte and Plumas Counties and the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in County of Butte v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
United States, ex rel. [read post]
28 Dec 2006, 9:09 am
Part IV discusses the response of the Supreme Court via its takings jurisprudence, and Part V reviews evidence of the actual impact of the takings decisions on local planning practice. [read post]