Search for: "State v. Plant" Results 3021 - 3040 of 4,020
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2018, 2:40 pm
This willingness of states and other public organs to delegate is especially potent with respect to rules states are unwilling or incapable of adopting through traditional assertions of public authority. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 2:44 pm
Eagle-eyed readers may have spotted that this weblog has yet to report on a 21 May 2015 IP decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union, (CJEU), this being Case C‑546/12 P Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 12:00 am by Jordan Bierkos
To assist you, dear reader, in making this determination, in this article, we have reviewed and summarized the current state of the law in British Columbia,[1]Builders’ Lien Act, SBC 1997, c 45 (the “B.C. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by Julia Englebert
Connecticut that states could not bring federal public nuisance claims against GHG-emitting power plants because Congress had delegated authority to EPA to regulate power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 10:19 pm by lawmrh
” Oklahoma City University Law Review v. 22 (Spring 1997). [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 6:27 am by James Jolin
But, as for congressional action, Ali argued for an update to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the Supreme Court invalidated in its seminal 1997 City of Boerne v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 10:35 am by Abbott & Kindermann
State Water Resources Control Board (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499); and the prevailing party’s recovery of attorneys fees for administrative time under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (Edna Valley Watch v. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 4:51 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Further, state law could allow a corporation to indemnify a director or officer. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 7:40 pm by Keith Rizzardi
  Also, earlier this year in a 9th Circuit decision, Palouse Prairie Foundation v. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 10:01 pm
Grassi, 783 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir. 1986) that a component of extortion for the purposes of the Hobbs Act is the victim’s fearful state of mind, and that “fear” is “‘a state of anxious concern, alarm or apprehension of harm and it includes fear of economic loss as well as fear of physical violence. [read post]