Search for: "Waters v. United States" Results 2961 - 2980 of 4,953
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2008, 12:15 pm
United States, No. 06-87L (Apr. 15, 2008), where the landowner sought compensation after the Fish and Wildlife Service designated property as critical habitat for the Mississippi Sandhill Crane. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 2:15 am
  The Attorney General said that, under the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Massachusetts v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 pm by Steven M. Taber
– EPA News Release, August 11, 2010 International Minerals Technology, LLC, of The Woodlands, Texas, has agreed to pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the federal Clean Water Act at its Tetra Micronutrients production facility in Fairbury, Neb. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 10:58 am
This decision, although favorable for Palmer, could launch "inclusionary zoning" and similar affordable housing laws across the state into uncertain legal waters as municipalities attempt to enforce now-questionable inclusionary zoning requirements. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
  Nevertheless, whatever is meant by "occurring", it must have taken place in one of these 10 counties or their adjacent waters for this new paragraph and its new requirements to apply. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 2:04 pm by Robert E. Connolly
The individual certainly cannot travel to the United States and travel elsewhere in the world risks detention and possible extradition to the United States. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm by John Elwood
United States, 11-820. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
” At Jost on Justice, Ken Jost weighs in on Packingham v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 10:18 am by Joe Mullin
Kraft sued TC Heartland for infringing its patents on "liquid water enhancers" in Delaware, and TC Heartland lawyers asked to move the case to its home state of Indiana. [read post]
2 May 2022, 1:08 pm by Amy Howe
In this case, Abitron is challenging a $90 million jury award against it for violating Hetronic’s U.S. trademarks – an amount that is based on Abitron’s total worldwide sales, 97% of which were outside the United States. [read post]