Search for: "Forest v. State" Results 321 - 340 of 2,399
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2009, 6:46 pm
The Forest Group v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 3:21 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Cieslak (Tribal Land; Tribal Sovereign Immunity)State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.htmlLewis v. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 2:04 pm by NARF
Pollack (Cultural Resources; National Historic Preservation Act; Tribal Consultation) State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2022.html J.P. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 1:50 pm by WIMS
 "Each state may decide if it wishes to adopt the deferral and proceed accordingly." [read post]
2 Apr 2023, 11:13 am by Giles Peaker
Zaman v Waltham Forest LBC Waltham had accepted that it owed Ms Zaman the full housing duty in October 2020. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 3:01 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Federal Trial Courtshttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2016dct.html State of Texas v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 5:22 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) HM Revenue & Customs v EB Central Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 486 (14 May 2008) Mason & Anor v East Potential Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 494 (14 May 2008) High Court (Administrative Court) Mabanaft Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2008] EWHC 1052 (Admin) (14 May 2008) High Court (Commercial Court) Shandong Chenming Paper Holding Ltd & Ors v Saga… [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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]
2 Jul 2012, 1:13 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. [read post]