Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,560
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2009, 2:04 pm
If the proposed exchange does not occur, the land will continue to be owned by the United States. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 9:59 am
See United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 7:45 am
State v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 11:51 am
United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990) and United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 7:28 am
Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006); Darby v. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 12:00 am
In Perez v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
United States. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:34 pm
See United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2019, 6:11 am
Margaret Taylor accepted responsibility for not identifying the now-suspended State Department protocol officer’s reported propensity for intimidating colleagues with a whip during the vetting process when she worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
The Association then participated in a mediation effort with Local 106 and the TA, but the mediation effort failed to resolve the conflict.The Association next filed a "Petition for Unit Clarification and/or Unit Placement" with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 5:05 am
" Citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d 1044, the Appellate Division explained that "[T]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" that is "less than a preponderance of the evidence, and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 5:05 am
" Citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d 1044, the Appellate Division explained that "[T]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" that is "less than a preponderance of the evidence, and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am
United States, 16-8777, Taylor v. [read post]
8 Nov 2006, 2:29 pm
United States and Shepard v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 6:58 am
Section 2254(d)(2) of Title 28, United States Code provides federal habeas relief may not be granted on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in the state courts unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 9:54 pm
Or, as in State v. [read post]
11 Jul 2020, 8:34 am
Vance and Trump v. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 4:25 am
In order to enhance the efficiency of the global patent system the IP5 Offices -- that's the patent offices of the United States, China, Korea, Japan and Europe -- endeavour to explore the harmonisation of their practices and procedures. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 3:29 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 3:30 am
and New Jersey did that a long time ago in Taylor v. [read post]
