Search for: "State v. Lingle"
Results 21 - 40
of 114
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2008, 12:51 am
Action, an association of owners of developed and undeveloped properties, challenged the ordinance as an unlawful uncompensated taking and asserted that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lingle v. [read post]
20 Dec 2008, 9:04 am
Georgette over at the Hawaii House Blog posts on a state Supreme Court ruling last week addressing the separation of powers doctrine. [read post]
15 May 2008, 5:31 pm
After Lingle v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 1:47 am
As the Supreme Court oral argument in the "ceded lands" case, Hawaii v. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 10:06 am
" Lingle, supra at 543. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 9:50 am
See Lingle v. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 10:06 am
Here is the abstract:The United States Supreme Court recently clarified in Lingle v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 8:12 pm
In New Jersey, for the last several years, following the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Lewis v. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 6:05 am
" (Buck v. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 9:18 pm
State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 6:07 pm
Supreme Court review under Michigan v. [read post]
2 Jan 2007, 11:11 pm
Rapanos v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 8:28 am
" Lingle v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 10:56 am
Last week, Governor Linda Lingle made the appointment, and barring a horrifying scandal emerging, he is a going to be deemed "qualified" by the Hawaii State Bar Association, and after a veritable love-fest, the Senate will consent. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 8:56 pm
Here is the abstract:Lingle v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 2:59 am
Today's Honolulu Advertiser posts a story, "Bennett receives support on ceded lands," about the amicus brief of 29 states supporting Hawaii's request for US Supreme Court review of the "ceded lands" decision, Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 10:55 am
”Prior to Lingle substantive due process claims were understood to be subsumed in 5th Amendment takings claims, and no separate cause of action could be stated under the rule of Armendariz v. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 10:55 am
”Prior to Lingle substantive due process claims were understood to be subsumed in 5th Amendment takings claims, and no separate cause of action could be stated under the rule of Armendariz v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 6:52 am
Lingle v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:38 pm
See slip op. at ¶¶ 16-18.Or that the court cited Lingle v. [read post]
