Search for: "State v. Land"
Results 3041 - 3060
of 13,220
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2012, 12:59 pm
See Borough of Ridgewood v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 12:12 pm
In Walton County v. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 2:35 pm
Wallace, Tax Matters Partner v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 5:25 am
Lawrence v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 7:04 am
Pulido, 07-544), and to clarify the federal government’s power to take land for the benefit of Indian tribes that are not officially recognized (Carcieri v. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 7:12 am
Immigration lawyers, reeling from yesterday’s defeat in United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 9:25 am
Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 9:26 pm
On 30th September 2011 in State of Haryana v. [read post]
17 May 2020, 9:01 pm
That is, even as Republicans have largely won their decades-long war against labor unions in the private sector (allowing most private companies to quickly drop their pension plans), the public sector is the one remaining stronghold of workers’ power.This issue arose in 2018’s Janus v. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 9:45 am
California Building Industry Association v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 9:01 am
Town of Ledyard (property tax, lessors of slot machines)* State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/currentstate.htmAdoptive Couple v. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 6:30 am
Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 11:09 am
Lynch (Religious Freedom; Controlled Substances)Navajo Nation v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 11:06 am
The Facts of the Case In the case of Elonis v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 2:07 pm
First, whether the continuation of an existing use of state land -- although processing a new product in lesser quantities -- qualified as a "use" of state land within the meaning of § 343-5. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 12:58 pm
In essence, the CBIA’s challenge was based on the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine from the Supreme Court of the United States’ Nollan v California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 11:08 am
Remanding this case to state court for apportionment will only eventually land it back in federal court because CMS has a long standing policy of not accept the apportionment and will likely challenge any such ruling on grounds that the MSP provides it will a full recovery right. [read post]
27 May 2009, 4:11 am
"* The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 9:18 am
In the case, Symonds v. [read post]
23 Nov 2019, 11:12 am
A list of best practice models based on recommendations from stakeholders and the public and reviewed by subject matter experts; v. [read post]
