Search for: "State v. Ponds"
Results 281 - 300
of 434
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2012, 4:05 pm
The case of The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 7:19 am
Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 3:26 am
" Imagine throwing a pebble into a still pond. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 6:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 11:00 pm
Secretary of State for the Home Department v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 1:25 pm
S. 159 (2001); and Rapanos v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 7:59 am
” For those of you across the pond, the case has its American peculiarities since Georgia State is claiming sovereign immunity from liability since defendants are individual collegiate officials that are employees of the State of Georgia being sued in federal court by citizens of another state in apparent violation (arguably) of our Constitution. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:36 am
The argument over the individual mandate is the big fish in this pond. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:36 am
The argument over the individual mandate is the big fish in this pond. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
Clement of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC, representing 26 states, followed by Michael D. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 10:58 pm
Thus, for example, in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL ([2007] 1 AC 359) Baroness Hale argued that the public have a right to know only if there is “a real public interest in communicating and receiving the information. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 5:40 am
If you’re interested, see chapter 10 (“Governing Cyberspace II: Names”) of my book In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace for a detailed account. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 9:22 am
Downing/Salt Pond Partners v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 5:38 pm
The Court, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:00 am
Today in our discussion of Sackett v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 2:53 am
See Price, et al. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 12:42 pm
Hollis v. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 6:00 am
The government denied the subsequent change order request (submitted by Syska), stating that the pond work was in the scope of the original contract and Syska withheld money owed for other aspects of the work to make up the difference for the previously billed pond work. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 4:03 am
But if the water originated by ponding surface water, the Court stated that would be an excluded cause. [read post]
