Search for: "United States v. General Elec."
Results 21 - 40
of 299
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2007, 1:49 am
Per United Steelworkers v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Evans v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 1:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 9:43 am
Elec. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 2:00 am
The initiative defines “corporation” as “every corporation organized under the laws of this state, or any other state of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 5:01 pm
Arnold, Chief Counsel of the General Counsel Division of the Attorney General's office in the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon, wrote as follows about Gonzales v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 8:25 am
Elec. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 12:27 pm
In Perry v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 8:37 am
Elec. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 8:07 pm
Institutional Architecture of Law and Governance: The United States and Law Making--The States and the People; Popular referendums. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 6:16 am
In the amicus brief, which was filed with the United States Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 2:45 pm
United States, 714 F.3d 1311,1315 (Fed. [read post]
9 Nov 2014, 6:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 7:53 am
United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 6:00 am
United States ex rel. [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]
20 Oct 2011, 3:34 am
United States Steel Corp. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 5:54 am
Matsushita Elec. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 5:54 am
Matsushita Elec. [read post]
