Search for: "Doe v. State"
Results 5081 - 5100
of 93,904
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2009, 5:01 am
Moreover, Rabb pre-dated Marin v. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 5:35 am
In Wittmer v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:24 pm
What Does This Mean? [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 11:57 am
In Berry v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 4:11 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 2:57 am
Peace, 54 A.D.3d 801 {2d Dep’t 20081; Boomer v. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 10:51 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 3:30 am
App. 4th 1282.3Adams 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]
21 Apr 2010, 6:36 pm
In Holster v. [read post]
22 May 2022, 9:41 am
Rumsfeld discussed the government interest in the opening of Part III of the opinion, which was necessary given that the expressive conduct section applied United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 7:28 am
” This appears to be the first endorsement by an appellate court of the approach taken by Mr Justice Mitting on this issue in the case of TLT v (1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) The Home Office [2016] EWHC 2217. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 12:30 pm
At long last, the en banc 11th Circuit today decided United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:25 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:38 pm
Since the United States Supreme Court's ruling on AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 7:44 am
United States Fin. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 8:25 am
” Khoury v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 1:02 pm
In Sandquist v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 7:06 am
The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties? [read post]
