Search for: "State v. Urban"
Results 281 - 300
of 1,871
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2020, 4:28 am
The absence of such rights is policy-based as their existence would limit urban construction. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 3:27 am
No. 1 v. [read post]
4 May 2008, 9:04 am
The meeting will take place in Committee Room 7 on the second floor of State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 3:12 pm
Complaint, Bridge Aina Le'a v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 8:37 am
Navajo Nation v. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 7:12 am
United States, 481 US 412 (1987). [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:58 am
Canton v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 6:25 am
Alvarez v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 6:24 am
United States, while the Des Moines Register reports on Pepper v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 12:19 pm
As already explained, the use of nominally private guards does not avoid the issue because the urbanizations and their guards qualify as state actors under the public function test. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:24 am
In Diarassouba v Urban ;2009 NY Slip Op 09420 ; Decided on December 15, 2009 ;Appellate Division, Second Department here is what happened: "While the court was in recess and the jury was deliberating, Conrad Jordan, counsel for the plaintiff, communicated to the defendants' counsel, Barry M. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 6:19 am
Urban Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30, 43 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Burlington N. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:01 am
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 12:01 am
The article also references our pending cert petition in County of Hawaii v. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 11:55 am
State ex rel. 14th Dist. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 2:38 am
Anthropologie, Inc. and Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 6:40 am
In his statement to the court in State of Arizona v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 8:04 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 8:04 am
Petitioners argue that Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) based on the proposed changes to the project and that ESDC violated the New York Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA) by not assuring that a plan is in place to alleviate the issue that ESDC previously found at the site. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:57 am
The two Supreme Court cases that comprise the bedrock of legal precedent for the third-party doctrine—Smith v Maryland and United States v Miller—do not apply to cell site location data, the court found: We agree with the defendant…that the nature of cellular telephone technology and CSLI and the character of cellular telephone use in our current society render the third-party doctrine of Miller and Smith inapposite; the digital age has altered… [read post]
