Search for: "Files v. State"
Results 7641 - 7660
of 91,643
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2016, 4:19 am
Finding that the action was filed in a state court of competent jurisdiction and was thus not removable, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand (Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 8:00 am
A document filed in the form of a mechanic's lien is "provided for by the . . . laws of this state" and thus cannot be presumed to be fraudulent under section 51.901(c)(2)(A) of the Government Code. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
# # #DECISIONMatter of A. v Quick [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 11:09 am
As we wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 4:15 am
The complaint (full text) in Hackett v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 6:01 pm
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 2:45 pm
I'm sorry for the delay, but I am posting now a petition for certiorari that I filed on March 8, in Rose v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 9:28 am
Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm
The first briefs in the cases will be filed on January 22. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 11:11 am
US (Guest Blog Post) * Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down” * Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. [read post]
5 Aug 2024, 4:24 am
Stated differently, at bottom, the F AC alleges that Ms. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:17 am
Background: In Brackeen v. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 7:15 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 9:43 am
See Eichorn v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
In New York v. [read post]
14 May 2013, 5:07 am
” Neal v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:42 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
18 Sep 2024, 11:02 am
One petition for certiorari was filed on 9/11/24: Apache Stronghold 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]
