Search for: "HOPE v. STATE"
Results 721 - 740
of 16,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2011, 4:21 pm
Here is the abstract: In Graham v. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:41 am
In the famous case of Marbury v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
” In an 1888 case called Banks v. [read post]
22 May 2013, 1:48 pm
In State of Tennessee v. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 10:41 am
See Dodd v. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 4:12 am
R (Quila & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (Bibi & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 8 – 9 June 2011. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 7:38 am
As I had hoped and expected, the Supreme Court issued a summary affirmance this morning in the Bluman v. [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 4:25 pm
Lilith Fund has not been defamed because Defendants hope one day to make abortion a crime, but because Defendants presently state that Lilith Fund is, at this moment, breaking the law. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 2:54 am
Whether one looks to God for the glory of the Union or not, the 9th Circuit decision in Newdow v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 2:19 pm
And in State v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 12:00 pm
United States (Birthright Citizenship) State Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2019.htmlState of Minnesota v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 7:45 am
In Hamdi v. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 3:14 pm
Obama and Al-Odah v. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 7:43 am
In the case of Kaler v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 7:47 am
AOL, FTC v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 7:24 am
In Estate of Novosett 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]
21 Jan 2016, 1:46 pm
I hope the Court will fix that problematic paragraph in Hurst. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 2:21 am
Let’s hope the new one makes a better job of it. [read post]
