Search for: "State v. Register"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 13,689
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2007, 5:43 pm
In 88766 Canada Inc. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 7:56 am
Due to a recent United States Supreme Court case, Alleyne v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 4:08 am
Schalk and Kopf v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
19 May 2018, 3:01 pm
Careful what you say . . .State v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 12:04 pm
The state judiciary rejected these arguments, Hill v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Regards, Roy] Walmart v. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 7:37 am
In Humane Society of the United States v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 1:51 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 8:42 am
United States and Dorsey v. [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]
9 Sep 2021, 3:27 am
Realty, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 8:42 am
Cotto v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 2:22 pm
Arizona v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 8:44 am
” State v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 8:44 am
” State v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:02 pm
State. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 7:56 am
On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Doe v. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 3:07 am
Neither of the lead opinions in Matal v. [read post]