Search for: "State v. Palmer" Results 241 - 260 of 661
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2018, 10:02 am by Emily Hammond
Indeed, in only a few contexts — such as equal protection and establishment clause cases — has the Supreme Court looked behind neutral statutory text to ascertain an illegitimate purpose, and even then it has been cautious, as in 1971’s Palmer v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 12:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 10:39 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Prior to taking title, 1080 advised the city that it believed the inclusionary condition to be invalid as a result of the decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 2:17 pm by @travelblawg
Code § 39A “Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft” in United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 7:18 am by stu@crimapp.com
Hear is a link to an excellent transcript of the oral argument of the Bryant case by Attorneys Peter VanHoek of the State Appellate Defender’s Office for Richard Perry Bryant, Attorney Lori Baughman Palmer of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office for the State of Michigan, and Deputy Solicitor General Leondra R. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
June 30, 2011) (applying TwIqbal and finding fraudulent joinder where “there are no factual allegations capable of supporting a claim”); Palmer v. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Butler, John Edward Fowler Distinguished Professor of Law and International Affairs, Pennsylvania State UniversityEDITORIAL BOARDJean Allain, Queen's University, Belfast Olga V. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 2:33 am
Palmer, who referred him to a pulmonologist, Dr. [read post]
Inclusionary Rental Housing From Steve Ryan and Tim Paone: AB 2502 was introduced in the California Assembly on February 19 principally to offset the 2009 court decision in Palmer v. [read post]
Inclusionary Rental Housing From Steve Ryan and Tim Paone: AB 2502 was introduced in the California Assembly on February 19 principally to offset the 2009 court decision in Palmer v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 1:20 pm by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While most of the underlying causes of action were time-barred before the plaintiff retained the [*2]defendants, the plaintiff's claim under 42 USC § 1983 arising from malicious prosecution was viable at the time the defendants commenced the federal action on the plaintiff's behalf (see Palmer v State of New York, 57 AD3d 364, 364; Pendelton v City of New York, 44 AD3d 733, 737). [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 8:17 pm
For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. 08a0372p.06 2008/10/10 S.E. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 1:59 am by Matrix Law
R (on the application of Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 7th June 2023. [read post]