Search for: "MATTER OF T F"
Results 5381 - 5400
of 13,720
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2017, 9:07 am
-Austin 2002, pet. granted, judgm't vacated w.r.m.). [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 9:07 am
-Austin 2002, pet. granted, judgm't vacated w.r.m.). [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am
The court did, however, hold that the receptor thresholds could be used under certain circumstances, consistent with the California Supreme Court’s ruling, such as: (1) when the effect is ‘exacerbated’ by the project; (2) when a lead agency wishes to use such information for its own evaluation purposes; and (3) for those certain projects specifically identified in CEQA that call for an analysis of impacts on future users (see airports (PRC § 21096), school construction… [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:12 am
, 345 F. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:12 am
, 345 F. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 7:11 am
The White House and the cabinet are charged with immensely consequential decisions; not infrequently, they determine matters of life and death. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 11:37 pm
Comm'n App. 1923, judgm't adopted) ("[T]he holder of a title in which there appears, however remote, a quitclaim deed is prevented from asserting the defense of innocent purchaser as against an outstanding title or secret trust or equity existing at the time the quitclaim deed was executed. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 10:12 pm
TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. [read post]
7 Jan 2017, 6:07 am
” f. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 6:28 am
Robinzine, 80 F.3d 246, 252 (7th Cir. 1996) (Statements offered not to prove `the truth of the matter asserted’ but for another legitimate purpose do `not even fit the definition of hearsay’). [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 3:17 pm
As a matter of state statute, a judge can’t let someone off the registry if doing so would violate relevant federal laws and regulations—even though North Carolina hasn’t enacted other state laws incorporating those federal standards explicitly. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 3:17 pm
As a matter of state statute, a judge can’t let someone off the registry if doing so would violate relevant federal laws and regulations—even though North Carolina hasn’t enacted other state laws incorporating those federal standards explicitly. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
Which it won’t, at least not in this case. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
Which it won’t, at least not in this case. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
Which it won’t, at least not in this case. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 9:49 am
But such use of speech as evidence of a person’s motivation (or, for that matter, of what the person actually did) is routine, and doesn’t generally raise a First Amendment problem, see, e.g., Haupt v. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 11:19 am
F. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
In re EPA & Dep't of Def. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
In re EPA & Dep't of Def. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 12:23 pm
“[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. [read post]
