Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 3101 - 3120
of 61,259
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2012, 8:54 pm
For example, in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 1:22 pm
Now, with Navarette v. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 12:00 am
KPMG LLP v. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 5:43 am
The appeals court agreed with Father, stating that the trial court erred in their sua sponte order for civil contempt. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 9:30 pm
Flemming v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 11:02 am
Now, according to the recent California Supreme Court decision in Gregory v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
324/09 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 8:24 am
Cleveland Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 10:01 am
Judge Leon notes that the Supreme Court took the Jones decision as an opportunity to revisit the Smith decision, because there was an earlier warrantless tracking device opinion, United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 1:31 am
Lady Justice Sharp proceeded to state, at [19] that, when the Court of Appeal comes to consider meaning: “The issue is not whether we would have come to the same or a different conclusion had we been trying the case at first instance. [read post]
30 May 2012, 4:36 pm
” Although the Court’s ruling in FAA v. [read post]
12 Jan 2023, 12:01 am
It was not be any means “equal. [read post]
16 Aug 2016, 7:27 am
The appellant argued that the VAT was a mandatory inclusion in his price which was state imposed and therefore he was collecting on behalf of the state. [read post]
27 Aug 2021, 2:30 pm
V(A)(3) (emphasis added). [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 7:43 am
Kaplinsky In its decision last week in PHH Corporation v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 9:35 am
However, the court chipped away at that general rule in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 10:12 am
Case citation: Tanner v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 5:20 am
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. [read post]
