Search for: "Holding v. State" Results 541 - 560 of 69,769
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2024, 3:29 pm by Stuart Kaplow
First, on January 29, 2024, the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR) put a “hold” on the proposed regulations to create the Maryland Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) that require all buildings in the state that are 35,000 square feet or more be net zero greenhouse gas emission by 2040, as required by the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, Chapter 38 of 2022, apparently out of concern that the proposed implementing… [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 11:33 am by admin
A few months after the Oregon hearings, Judge Weinstein, in the fall of 1996, along with other federal and state judges, held a “Daubert” hearing on the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony in breast implant cases, pending in New York state and federal courts. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm by Marty Lederman
 Moreover, at least three important precedents--United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm by Dennis Crouch
Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 6(g) “empowered [the FTC] to promulgate substantive rules of business conduct”); United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 11:05 am by Guest Author
  However, the case would give Justice Gorsuch a chance to more fully connect the federalism canon and MQD (as he began to do in West Virginia v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 10:25 am by Howard Bashman
United States is the last, best chance to hold the ex-president accountable for trying to steal the last election before the next one takes place; The Republican justices understand that their job is to talk about anything else” appeared first on How Appealing. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 9:08 am by John Elwood
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed, holding that although RICO only permits suit by a plaintiff “injured in his business or property” by racketeering activity, an economic injury resulting from personal injury sufficed. [read post]
The Court of Appeal overruled the first-instance court, holding that it had not taken into account all relevant circumstances under Article 49(5) UPCA. [read post]
On appeal, the Court agreed with Meade J, holding : AIM’s letter was not an admission of invalidity – it had been a pragmatic case management proposal. [read post]