Search for: "U.S. v. One Single Family Residence" Results 121 - 140 of 384
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2014, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
The controversial ruling in one state, which initially allowed marriages only of its own residents, began a trend that would affect the whole nation. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 2:41 am by Michael Lowe
  Single family dwellings in a subdivision; duplexes; townhouses; condominiums; and apartments are all built for permanency. [read post]
  Specifically, the County met its initial burden of demonstrating that it used a valid method for imposing the TIM fee, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by Sheetz’s development of a single-family residence in a specific geographic zone. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 5:41 am by Jessica Zhang, Andrew Patterson
The many defendants receive a single lawyer between them, who meets with each client for a few minutes at a time. [read post]
18 May 2007, 2:51 pm
LPR Status: A Z-1 nonimmigrant may adjust status to lawful permanent residence after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant: Satisfies the merit requi [read post]
9 May 2017, 7:30 am by Josh Blackman
Yesterday, thirteen judges of the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc heard argument in IRAP v. [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 5:41 am by Susan Brenner
Chaker] had a brief romantic relationship with Nicole Mateo (Nicole), who resides in Texas. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 8:54 am by John Baker
Customs and Border Protection process provides one line for U.S. nationals (citizens and permanent legal residents) and a separate line for all foreigners because they are “aliens. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 10:53 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
The CZMA exempts a single-family residence from the definition of "development" for which a SMA permit is needed, unless the home will have a "cumulative impact, or a significant environmental or ecological effect" on the SMA. [read post]
4 May 2018, 9:11 am by Richard Hunt
The City’s defense was, as the court said, “dubious” because it relied on the notion that no one was allowed to have more than three unrelated individuals in a single family residence, whether or not disabled. [read post]