Search for: "State v. Plain"
Results 721 - 740
of 11,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2014, 3:23 am
(My earlier Plain English coverage of the case is available here.) [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 10:42 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 8:22 pm
" where there is no physical taking of the property, no enchantment is possible under United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 10:14 am
This week in Gunn v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 6:11 am
For example, let’s start off with Milner v. [read post]
26 Mar 2008, 12:55 pm
See United States v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 10:33 am
Elonis v. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 5:55 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 3:06 am
Petitioners challenged a resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains that adopted a findings statement pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 4:21 pm
CAAF released its opinion in United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 9:02 pm
But the plain meaning, especially when the provision was enacted, was pretty clear: The citizens of one state cannot sue the government of another state in federal court simply on account of so-called diversity of citizenship, that is, the fact that the plaintiff and defendant come from different states. [read post]
21 May 2014, 6:54 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 1:11 pm
(To be sure, it has prevailed in some other courts, including Hernandez v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 9:19 am
§ 922(g), the Court in United States v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:40 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 11:45 am
When the Court issued yesterday’s decision in Fisher v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 11:42 am
Times Democrat Publishing Co. v. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 4:15 am
United States). [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 am
Toomey, citing School District 6 v NYSHRB, 35 NY2d 371, said that such a personnel policy, even if the product of negotiations under [the Taylor Law] would violate the State’s Human Rights Law and is therefore a prohibited subject of negotiations.* See Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [read post]
