Search for: "Holding v. State"
Results 401 - 420
of 69,726
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 9:06 pm
Nonetheless, the latest to pass into law is Alabama Senate Bill 23, which makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute any cultivated food product in the state. [read post]
13 May 2024, 8:55 pm
In Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 3:42 pm
The Court holds that it cannot. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:41 am
” “Delaware Supreme Court Holds MFW Inapplicable Based on Banker Conflict Disclosure Deficiencies” — “The Delaware Supreme Court has reversed a Court of Chancery decision dismissing challenges to the acquisition of Inovalon Holdings, Inc. by a consortium led by Swedish private equity firm Nordic Capital in a decision demonstrating the importance of disclosure of financial advisor conflicts in order to obtain the benefit of business judgment rule review… [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:05 pm
ENDNOTE [1] Basic v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 11:54 am
Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell v. [read post]
11 May 2024, 7:42 am
King v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:31 pm
Washington, D.C. super-lawyer, Gene Schaerr, has filed an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 10:38 am
The car owners in this case had argued that due process does give them a right to a prompt hearing under Mathews v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:01 am
Circuit’s application of the Fitzgerald test in Blassingame v. [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]
10 May 2024, 7:35 am
[7] Maslowski et al. v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:45 am
See NCAA v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 4:34 am
” People v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 3:59 pm
United States, 139 S. [read post]
9 May 2024, 2:41 pm
S. 555 (1983), and United States v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 11:30 am
Wade, Griswold v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 11:14 am
Div. 2009) 4 Adams v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:45 am
The case is Jamie Allen Harless v. [read post]
