Search for: "State v. Town of Grants"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,918
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2017, 4:51 am
United States, Town of Chester v. [read post]
26 Feb 2025, 2:41 am
Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015); Barr v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 10:40 am
State of Indiana Chad Bryant v. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 3:25 am
Some towns elected their own legislatures. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
The new Bad Guys coming to town are disguised as Good Guys because they say they are for the “common good. [read post]
30 Apr 2008, 11:40 am
See Town of Highland v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 8:00 am
Wallace v. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 6:23 am
Her mother was out of town. [read post]
27 May 2010, 9:43 am
In Town of Smithtown v National Union Fire Ins. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 7:45 am
The courts appear to exist in a few Delaware cities based on charters granted by the legislature to the cities, primary among them Newark. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 8:20 pm
Accordingly, the court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss Zito v North Carolina Coastal Commission, 2020 WL 1493476 (ED NC 3/27/2020) [read post]
22 May 2012, 1:00 pm
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) today issued a decision in Regis College v. [read post]
18 Dec 2007, 12:05 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Casey Comai v. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 10:35 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Charles Brown v. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 6:16 pm
Banegas CA2/2 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 3:41 am
Pennsylvania and Barr v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 7:58 pm
State likewise grants relief. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:37 pm
Luis V. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:28 pm
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 5:44 am
” On appeal, appellants argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Waterman and the Town Commissioners because, under Article XIF, Section 6 of the Maryland Constitution, the county had the legal authority to adopt Resolution 14-33. [read post]
