Search for: "State v. Code" Results 7401 - 7420 of 27,233
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2011, 4:27 pm by INFORRM
The Grand Chamber stated in Cumpana v Romania on 17 December 2004 at paragraph 91, in the context of a publication covered by Article 10, that Article 8 “may require the adoption of positive measures designed to secure effective respect for private life even in the sp [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am by Abbott & Kindermann
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]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm by Kyle Hulehan
The improvements Massachusetts made to its tax code since the 1980s in terms of corporate and individual income tax rate reductions have helped the Commonwealth become more competitive, but in 2022, the Bay State still ranked 34th overall on the Index—well below the median. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:44 am by Eric Goldman
For example, imagine that Freed posted a list of local restaurants with health-code violations and deleted snarky comments made by other users. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 9:30 pm by Cary Coglianese
Albuquerque’s legal loss probably could have been prevented, as a later case involving a Washington State green building code suggested. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 8:06 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016) and United States v. [read post]
28 May 2011, 5:39 am by INFORRM
Or again, echoing the terminology of the Press Complaints Commission Code, would publication in some way prevent the public from being seriously misled? [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 3:29 pm
CAAF's daily journal for Wednesday, 4 April denied without prejudice the writ appeal in United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 1:09 pm
On August 7, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice identifying the applicability date of regulatory provisions relating to applications containing patentably indistinct claims which are enjoined in Tafas v. [read post]