Search for: "Begin v. State"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 20,736
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2013, 3:18 am
Counsel for the Times, David McCraw, is only able to outline the two major issues in the case before the judges begin their questions. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 5:22 am
In a recent case, Dewayne Wright v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 9:26 am
Assoc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 7:02 am
Abraxis BioScience v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:38 am
United States, with Steven F. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 1:27 pm
Supreme Court reviewed two provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) earlier this year in Gonzalez v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 5:44 am
Perry and United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 10:15 am
Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 6:41 am
United States. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 3:03 pm
See United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 8:21 am
Earlier coverage of Miller v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 2:16 pm
United States and Printz v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 6:55 pm
In Adams v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 11:56 am
We’re a long ways way off from a trial in United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 8:19 am
, Dec. 19, 2006.[2] Id.[3] Id.[4] Id.[5] United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 6:19 am
Louis v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 5:16 pm
To begin, National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 5:14 pm
State licensure boards and, especially, market participant members, should begin reviewing their practices to ensure they can withstand antitrust review if necessary. [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]
