Search for: "State v. Miner"
Results 1281 - 1300
of 1,488
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2010, 1:35 am
The word of the year for plaintiff's lawyers these days is Iqbal, as in Ashcroft v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 5:11 am
The first decision -- Werberl v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 6:12 am
CAFC: Bilski V. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:22 am
Chinese companies, backed with every advantage the state can provide, must venture out into the world to lock down long-term access to the crude oil, natural gas, metals, minerals, and other commodities needed to fuel a still-vulnerable developing economy. . . . [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 2:05 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm
Brown and David Matusow, Bahr, et al. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 2:18 pm
First, the Federal Department of the Interior has the sole right to regulate the safety of offshore drilling, to the exclusion of the states. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 8:24 am
The State of Texas v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:30 pm
Gaitis With the issuance of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-a-Center, West, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:37 pm
The brief argues that states are entitled to participate in the policy and decision-making process by the Federal government on issues relating to the exploration and development of Outer Continental Shelf minerals and requires the Secretary of Interior to cooperate with affected states. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 8:39 am
Kendall of Hacker, Hacker, & Kendall, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Facts/Discussion: Declining mineral revenue required Governor Freudenthal to request budget reduction plans from all state agencies. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 11:16 am
The lawsuit at the center of the film is based on Jenson v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 2:30 pm
(HRI) v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
See Gibson v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 3:50 pm
The difference in presenting data to a jury v. to a judge is a big one. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 6:26 am
The other day I talked about the decision in Holland v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 1:24 am
In brief, Section V presents what HRIAs should have found for these companies. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:24 pm
United States Mineral Products Co., 898 A.2d 590, 600 (Pa. 2006), "there is no strict liability in Pennsylvania relative to non-intended uses even where foreseeable by the manufacturer. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 8:13 pm
This is true both for the much-vilified Minerals Management Service and the Federal Communications Commission. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
Click Here US District Court Decision in US v. [read post]
