Search for: "State v. Files" Results 1201 - 1220 of 91,584
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2024, 11:54 am by Stuart Kaplow
Last year, the state court ruled in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs in Held v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 3:51 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Timing Rule 262A.3 RoP states that “The Application shall be made at the same time as lodging a document containing the information or evidence and shall provide a copy of the unredacted relevant document and, if applicable, a copy of the redacted document. [read post]
11 May 2024, 10:09 am by Russell Knight
This money judgment, however, only states that a party must pay a particular sum. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:31 pm by Steven Calabresi
Washington, D.C. super-lawyer, Gene Schaerr, has filed an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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, 7:04 am by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.
  They argued the court should follow a 2013 decision from Texas, Rachal v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 5:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Pliva, Inc. v Mensing (564 U.S. 604 [2011]), the Supreme Court found that these plaintiffs’ state-law claims against generic manufacturers were preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause to the extent that state-law failure-to-warn statutes required generic drugs to provide more stringent, safer warning labels. [read post]