Search for: "State v. Hope"
Results 41 - 60
of 16,349
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2024, 6:32 am
In March, our team at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection—along with our co-counsel at Law Forward and Stafford Rosenbaum, LLP—settled Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:27 am
" The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Regan v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:55 am
Juliana v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 3:30 am
Hila Keren The notorious 1905 Supreme Court decision in Lochner v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:50 am
A “real and substantial interest” standard sounds rather favorable for an unnamed shareholder hoping to intervene in a derivative suit. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:01 am
Circuit’s application of the Fitzgerald test in Blassingame 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]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 12:38 pm
Related Cases: Google v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:01 pm
Randle has a history of such outbursts, which defendants sometimes deploy in hopes of getting a mistrial. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:21 am
Lam stated that the government would approach these providers according to the injunction and hoped that the providers would honour their promises. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:43 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:01 am
Elrod v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:58 am
., v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
See James v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:30 am
McCabe (concluding that the classification of marijuana was not rational); State v. [read post]
