Search for: "State v. Settle"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 15,654
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2009, 11:56 pm
The Supreme Court's observations in JK Industries v. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 2:31 am
The last phrase of this rule was the part that gave Justice Sam Alito pause in his concurring opinion in Taylor v. [read post]
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Germaninvestments AG, v. Allomet Corp., Docket No. 291, 2019
4 Mar 2020, 12:54 pm
(Hldg.) v. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 3:59 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 12:53 pm
USF&G v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 1:33 pm
The case is Ecogen Wind LLC v. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 5:43 pm
In Bridgetown, the plaintiff homeowner’s association had previously settled a state court action with a defendant developer for claims at a condominium project. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 3:00 am
Steven Archavage v Professional Account Services, 2017 WL 1162911 (M.D. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 8:11 am
United States v. [read post]
11 May 2010, 9:57 am
The Supreme Court of Florida just issued an important decision (Perera v. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 2:59 am
The case cite is Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 10:15 am
Since its 1943 decision Parker v. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
State of California, no. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
Without such an exception, he thought, originalism would be intolerably unsettling of settled practices. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 2:41 am
The case is Richardson v. [read post]
17 Sep 2024, 11:29 am
(Jarkesy v. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 9:40 pm
Gomez 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]
