Search for: "FISH v. STATE" Results 1161 - 1180 of 3,432
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2015, 9:48 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Department of Fish & Wildlife and California Building Industry Assn. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 6:36 am by Conor McEvily
Joe Palazzolo of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that Antoine Jones, the respondent in United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2014, 7:19 pm
[…] Additionally, the specification of the Asserted Patents discloses the use of a fish-eye lens, […] and “fish-eye views,” […]. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 1:16 pm by WIMS
At issue is whether the STB and the second respondent, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), complied with their obligations under § 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to ensure that the proposed rail was "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species" before approving the exemption. 16 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:51 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Maple Drive Farms v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 7:07 pm by Peter Spiro
  Where the brief cites the 1941 decision in Hines v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 6:57 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.htmlO’Brien v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 7:34 pm by Joe Koncelik
Fish & Wildlife that the headwater streams impacted provided critical support of trout in downstream rivers. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 10:25 am
Judge Kleinfeld holds (indeed, waxes poetic about the fact) that the federal courts shouldn't resolve a continuing and longstanding dispute between various Indian tribes about how much fish each tribe is allowed to take under a series of treaties with the United States in the 1850s. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 4:00 am by Administrator
Further, it castigated the RCMP, stating, “There is also a disquieting fact that, on the record before us, it seems that the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. [read post]