Search for: "Land v. State" Results 1101 - 1120 of 13,217
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2009, 6:56 am
Thanks to Professor Patty Salkin's Law of the Land blog for letting us know that on January 14, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (that state's highest court) will be hearing oral arguments in Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 12:45 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Nor has the language of various Indian treaties, like those between the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the United States, changed; they continue to recognize the Tribe’s authority to exclude non-members. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 3:45 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
§ 1152-such that the federal government may prosecute Indians for virtually any state-law offense committed in Indian country, including on lands promised by treaty for the “exclusive use” of Indian tribes.Lower court materials here. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 1:49 pm by Mark L. McNamara and Collin R. Melancon
On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted review of the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 1:58 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 9:06 pm by Lyle Denniston
The state, the town, and the liquor dealers then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to rule both that ambiguity about the Solem v. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 3:48 pm by Unknown
State of Oklahoma and Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Nonmember Taxation)State of South Dakota v. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 6:10 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
  When designating the horse as New Jersey’s state animal in 1977 Governor Bryne said: “The founding fathers of our state thought so highly of the horse that they included it in our state seal. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 6:44 am
In United States v. 4.85 Acres of Land, No. 07-35310 (Sep. 29, 2008), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court should not have refused to admit evidence of sales at properties nearby the property taken, even though the sales occurred after the taking. [read post]