Search for: "United States v. CERTAIN LANDS, ETC."
Results 61 - 80
of 162
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
Furthermore, subsequent zoning actions may be relevant to both land value and damages, or special benefits. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 10:26 am
Circuit has made clear on numerous occasions (for example, in Holy Land Foundation v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm
My decision to vote in favour of the measures indicated rests on the plausible claim by South Africa that certain statements by Israeli State officials, including members of its military, give rise to a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention (see paragraphs 50-52 of the Order). [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm
., number and type of projects approved, applications made, construction data, etc.) as specified, to the Department of Housing and Community Development. [read post]
13 Mar 2022, 4:46 pm
License Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreements Know-How Right of First Refusal Contract Interpretation Extrinsic Evidence of a Contemporaneous Oral Agreement Parol Evidence Rule Breach of Contract Equitable Estoppel DefenseIowa LawContract Drafting Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa – Central Wildhawk Investments, LLC (“Wildhawk”) initiated this breach of contract… [read post]
6 May 2015, 11:14 am
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984); United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 9:54 am
Today, scholars across the political spectrum recognize that exclusionary zoning was (and remains) one of the main causes of racial and class segregation in the United States. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 4:12 pm
United States. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 3:37 pm
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 7:08 pm
Appeals filed by individuals residing in certain U.S. territories will be carried out by the applicable entity within the state in the same manner as appeals regarding regular unemployment compensation. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 11:50 am
State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 561 (“Citizens”), a decision analyzed in this blog’s 2/9/12 post.) [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 1:27 pm
One of the most contentious and complicated emerging issues of corporate law in the United States is the issue of attorney client privilege when it is asserted by an entity. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 2:28 pm
Tide Inc. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:12 pm
Finally, recent United States Supreme Court cases Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 9:01 pm
At the time of his alleged violation of the state’s civil rights statute, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages as a matter of state law, and the United States Supreme Court had said nothing to suggest that limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
” As support, it then stated, “In Fox Film Corp. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying, “the mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption.” To be exempt from state taxation, the government must reserve some sort of controlling interest in a grant or privilege. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:59 pm
: Don Henley et al v Charles DeVore etc al (IP Whiteboard) TheFlyOnTheWall.com – Google and Twitter pour cold water on ‘hot news’: Barclays v TheFlyOnTheWall.com (Ars Technica) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) US Copyright Group – P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 ‘Does’ at once is fine (ArsTechnica) US Trademarks & Domain Names Online keyword advertising: Misleading customers? [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:18 am
: Don Henley et al v Charles DeVore etc al (IP Whiteboard) TheFlyOnTheWall.com - Google and Twitter pour cold water on ‘hot news’: Barclays v TheFlyOnTheWall.com (Ars Technica) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) US Copyright Group - P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 ‘Does’ at once is fine (ArsTechnica) US Trademarks & Domain Names Online keyword advertising: Misleading customers? [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 1:18 pm
At least Congress is no longer trying tell the courts to ignore large swaths of what is, in fact, the Supreme Law of the Land. [read post]
