Search for: "State v. Ponds"
Results 321 - 340
of 434
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2011, 12:01 am
The property owner in Downing/Salt Pond Partners v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 1:19 pm
As described by the Appeals Court, Downing/Salt Pond Partners, L.P., frustrated by two state agencies' restrictions on its development of a coastal residential subdivision in Narragansett, Rhode Island, appeals the district court's dismissal of its Federal takings claims under the Supreme Court's ripeness requirements for such claims, set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:09 am
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:09 am
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). [read post]
10 May 2011, 9:41 am
In United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
Snyder v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 1:35 am
Snyder v. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
Justice BhandariThe Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:22 pm
It is always interesting when a court holds that the laws of another country should apply, and such was the ruling in Albemarle Corp. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 5:33 pm
Ctr., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 6:30 am
Williams Electronics, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 10:00 am
However, it did not address the fact that the Viewers and Appraisers specifically stated that there were other places where the pond could be built. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:04 am
A view of law school debt on the other side of the pond from Charon QC, a UK law blog. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:45 pm
Fang G, Araujo V, Guerrant RL. (1991). [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 10:17 am
There is no case of Smith v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:03 am
Well, perhaps it is not a lake but rather a pond. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 7:42 am
DECISIONS Sackett v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:18 am
” Under Part V, “Protection from suffering detriment in employment,” of this law, 47B on “Protected disclosures” states that, “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:18 am
” Under Part V, “Protection from suffering detriment in employment,” of this law, 47B on “Protected disclosures” states that, “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure. [read post]
