Search for: "State v. Shows"
Results 401 - 420
of 60,196
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2024, 1:42 pm
VILER, Appellants, v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 3:51 am
Timing Rule 262A.3 RoP states that “The Application shall be made at the same time as lodging a document containing the information or evidence and shall provide a copy of the unredacted relevant document and, if applicable, a copy of the redacted document. [read post]
11 May 2024, 7:42 am
King 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, 7:00 am
Facts – This case (Martin-Viana v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:45 am
The California Air Resources Board provides an interactive map showing which states have adopted some or all of California’s standards. [read post]
10 May 2024, 3:27 am
See State v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 12:04 am
It had eight depots spread throughout the State. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:23 pm
Petrella v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:00 am
In response to petitioner's showing, NYCTA offered no particularized evidence of prejudice (see Clarke v New York City Tr. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:00 am
In response to petitioner's showing, NYCTA offered no particularized evidence of prejudice (see Clarke v New York City Tr. [read post]
9 May 2024, 9:32 am
State v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 6:35 am
Intrusion upon seclusion claim: The court referred to Jones v Tsige and stated that the tort required intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of another of his private affairs. [read post]
9 May 2024, 6:05 am
The judge had let prosecutors show a transcript of the footage to the jury, but not the tape itself, which Merchan found too inflammatory for trial. [read post]
9 May 2024, 5:55 am
Second, based on the first conclusion, and as established by the ICJ in Bosnia v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 2:00 am
Sharp v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:01 pm
According to Noem, she mentioned the incident to show she is willing to make hard decisions. [read post]
8 May 2024, 12:47 pm
Corp. of America, 732 F.Supp. 885 (1990), (People of State of Ill. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 12:15 pm
In Naranjo v. [read post]
