Search for: "State v. Code"
Results 8741 - 8760
of 27,233
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2011, 4:00 pm
The court cites to AOL v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 10:36 am
State of Indiana (NFP) M.C. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 1:30 am
Wilkinson v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 1:56 pm
According to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth in Adams v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 2:36 pm
See State v. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 6:34 am
Code Ann. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 11:15 am
State v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm
The Court noted the High Court decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin) that revocation of the plan by excecutive action was unlawful and also the Court of Appeal decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 639 that the intended revocation of the regional plan was a material factor that planning authorities could… [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm
The Court noted the High Court decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin) that revocation of the plan by excecutive action was unlawful and also the Court of Appeal decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 639 that the intended revocation of the regional plan was a material factor that planning authorities could… [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 8:54 am
HB 443 makes a similar statement with respect to interstate commerce as it relates to food (possibly in an effort to directly challenge Wickard v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 2:33 pm
After initially denying the misconduct, Doe eventually signed a form acknowledging his actions had violated the Student Conduct Code. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 5:47 am
The Supreme Court took judicial note of this fact in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 5:47 am
The Supreme Court took judicial note of this fact in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 6:49 am
Mitchell & Co. v Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288, Evidence Code §350 states that (n)o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. [read post]
26 Sep 2008, 5:22 pm
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 6:25 am
” Estrada v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:52 am
Code § 35-42-1-1. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 4:18 pm
In United Air Lines, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 5:57 pm
***In Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc. v. [read post]
