Search for: "Land v. United States"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 6,622
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
Since both the United States and India are federations, invariably the Superior Courts in those jurisdictions are called on to decide when there appears to be any conflict between state and federal legislation or a question of legislative competence arises. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 3:07 pm
United States, 298 U.S. 242 (1936), in which it held that an offer of proof that irrigation water could be transported to the land was not too "remote and speculative" and should have been allowed in support of the property owner's contention that the highest and best use of the land taken was to grow sugar cane. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 12:28 pm
In his opinion for the majority in Jones v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 3:51 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 12:00 pm
One of those cases, Sackett v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 11:36 pm
The Harts petitioned the Land Court to consolidate two parcels of land. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 5:23 pm
The United States Supreme Court in Shute v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 12:59 pm
Living in California, the land of holistic therapies, I know that anger swallowed often morphs into depression. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 8:29 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 1:59 am
See generally United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 10:13 pm
See generally United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 7:43 am
The Fourth Circuit’s decision here leans heavily on two Supreme Court precedents involving Bivens and the military context, United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:21 pm
In distinguishing Windisman[28], Winkler J. had stated that in Sutherland the work of the RP was unnecessary to the preparation or presentation of the case. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm
United States (1/25/12), the U.S. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm
United States (1/25/12), the U.S. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:01 am
United States, 298 U.S. 242 (1936) - an offer of proof that irrigation water could be transported to the land was not too "remote and speculative," and should have been allowed in support of the property owner's contention that the highest and best use of the land taken was to grow sugar cane. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 9:35 pm
In Seung v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 12:16 pm
The BIG FUSS this week has been about United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 2:46 pm
United States (Health and Human Services contract)United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 2:43 pm
United States Environmental Protection Agency: Helen Person and the landmark struggleagainst environmental injustice. [read post]
