Search for: "Sullivan v. State" Results 461 - 480 of 2,709
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
On the other hand, the Colorado restriction might not survive the application of United States v United Foods, Inc 533 US 405 (2001), where obligations upon fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales did not survive Central Hudson scrutiny as mediated through Glickman v Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc 521 US 457 (1997). [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 4:45 am
Financial investment data concerning public official's spouse subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information LawMatter of Humane Socy. of United States v Fanslau, 2008 NY Slip Op 06681, Decided on August 28, 2008, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, the Court of Appeals said that there is a presumption that all government and agency records are open for public inspection unless the agency… [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 12:10 pm by Daily Record Staff
Real property — Foreclosure sale — Timeliness of exceptions A homeowner filed exceptions to a foreclosure sale more than 30 days after the clerk had issued a notice stating that the sale would be ratified unless cause to the contrary were shown within 30 days after the date of the notice. [read post]
17 May 2010, 10:29 am by Amy Wright
The Supreme Court released its opinion today in Graham v. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 12:58 pm by Howard Friedman
Sullivan,(9th Cir., April 12, 2017), the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's RLUIPA complaint regarding restrictions on the wearing of dreadlocks.In Clark v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 5:53 am by Patricia Salkin
Boehm v Town of Sullivan’s Island Board of Zoning Appeals, 2018 WL 1513747 (SC App 3/28/2018) [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:49 am by Grant Sullivan
Sullivan is an assistant solicitor general with the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of nine states in support of respondents in Espinoza v. [read post]