Search for: "State v. Urban" Results 781 - 800 of 1,871
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm by Lyle Denniston
In a 1966 decision, in a Hawaii state legislative redistricting case, Burns v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 1:42 am by centerforartlaw
Another significant legal battle involving murals and VARA unfolded in the case of Kerson v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 6:45 am by admin
Commission on State Mandates (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 266, 272-274; County of Los Angeles v. [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 10:15 pm by Walter Olson
We choose your locations (5) Urban farming (0) [read post]
11 May 2017, 5:35 am
 Instead, the service amounts to the organisation and management of a comprehensive system for on-demand urban transport. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 8:44 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
There is no denying the space program in the United States is not like it once was. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 4:23 pm by Matt Brown
Sometimes jailhouse urban legends come true for lucky defendants. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 8:44 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
There is no denying the space program in the United States is not like it once was. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 11:26 am
Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government, 175 S.W.3d 569 (Kentucky Supreme Court 2005). [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 3:12 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Those familiar with the CEQA parking debate will recall that the First District, in its referenced 2002 SFUDP decision, upheld the adequacy of an EIR that stated “[p]arking shortfalls relative to demand are not considered significant environmental impacts in the urban context of San Francisco. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 10:07 pm
It will also create a bit more confusion across political lines by further showing how an "activist court" can both produce Roe v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 2:43 pm by David Bernstein
Moreover, this was hardly an “apolitical” decision, because it forced states to reduce representation for (conservative) rural areas in favor of (liberal) urban areas, consistent with the political interests of the Court’s majority. [read post]