Search for: "State v. First Judicial Dist."
Results 581 - 600
of 1,064
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2015, 6:08 am
Dist. # 204 (7th Cir. 2008); Dworkin v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 6:16 am
Dist. [read post]
28 May 2015, 2:29 pm
Dist [read post]
27 May 2015, 7:00 am
Dist. [read post]
26 May 2015, 10:41 am
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
12 May 2015, 12:51 pm
Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 5:03 pm
(See, e.g., Friends of Oroville v. [read post]
2 May 2015, 10:00 pm
Under this doctrine, a federal district court “must refuse to hear a de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and “must also refuse to decide any issue … that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision. [read post]
1 May 2015, 7:46 am
Bernstein v Village of Wesley Hills, 2015 WL 1399993 (SDNY 3/27/2015)Filed under: Current Caselaw - New York, Environmental Review, RLUIPA [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 12:29 pm
Leach Builders, LLC v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 12:29 pm
Resolution by the court would thus also conserve judicial and private resources. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 6:51 am
State v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
First, and foremost, there must be “[a] valid study and risk estimate. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 6:30 am
Yücel is a citizen of Sweden . . ., and was extradited from the Republic of Moldova to the United States in May 2014.U.S. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 1:50 pm
“The Book” is the most widely used and judicially recognized real estate treatise in California and is cited by practicing attorneys and courts throughout the state. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 12:56 pm
-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ); Continental Cas. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 3:25 pm
State Water Resources Control Board (3/30/15 2d Dist., Div. 6) ____ Cal.App.4th _____, 2015 WL 1417283, 2d Civil No. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:30 am
(Par. 58) This is a court wearing its judicial heart on the sleeves of its judicial robes. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:28 pm
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
