Search for: "Zone v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 5,444
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2024, 10:08 am
This decision follows 2020’s Commission v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 9:56 pm
McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:36 am
In Maxell, Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
This is a high but not impossible bar to meet, as shown in United States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 5:55 pm
Westrick v Dorcon Group, LLC, 2024 WL 2857912 (VA 6/9/2024) [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 11:49 am
AsymaDesign v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 11:59 am
State-by-state reform efforts cannot curb exclusionary zoning nationwide, at one fell swoop. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 7:30 am
One example is United States v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 9:01 am
Stankiewicz v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 9:52 am
The historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) program lacks the ability to appeal an initial denial of certification for much the same reason as WOSB. [read post]
21 May 2024, 6:00 am
Nix v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 5:00 am
Nearly overnight, the universities went from wringing their hands about speech codes and microaggressions to recharacterizing prohibited actions (e.g., encampments, occupied buildings, and student-enforced no-go zones for some of their classmates) and widespread harassment as protected speech. [read post]
19 May 2024, 9:05 pm
Aug 29, 2023 | Could West Virginia v EPA Strengthen State Climate Laws | Scholars argue that a recent Supreme Court decision may bolster state climate lawsuits. [read post]
19 May 2024, 11:28 am
State. [read post]
19 May 2024, 4:01 am
Criminal Law: Language RightsR. v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm
This week the Tenth Circuit vacates that opinion and requests supplemental briefing on how the Supreme Court's recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 12:37 pm
Brown v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 2:00 am
In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 12:43 pm
Our article on the same, “Hilltop Group, Inc. 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]
