Search for: "United States v. Bird"
Results 121 - 140
of 601
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2023, 12:09 pm
On August 29, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 12:09 pm
On August 29, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:57 am
(A “United States work” is a work first published in the United States, or simultaneously published in the United States and any foreign country; or an unpublished work (or a work first published in a nation with whom the United States does not have a copyright treaty) for which all authors are citizens of or domiciled in the United States. 17 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 11:41 am
Supreme Court in Miller v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 10:07 am
The persistent underfunding of indigent defense systems in the United States for the last 50 years has occurred on the watch of our state courts and our profession. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 10:28 am
In Sierra Club v. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 8:11 am
He argued that the United States had a legitimate reason to use the CWA instead of CERCLA in an effort to “kill two birds with one stone. [read post]
5 May 2017, 11:37 am
Wooster v Queen City Landing, LLC 2017 WL 1822611 (NYAD 4 Dept. 5/5/017)Filed under: Current Caselaw - New York, Environmental Review [read post]
3 Jun 2018, 11:02 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 10:44 am
Originally, maritime or admiralty law was applicable when any claim arose upon the navigable waters of the United States. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 3:20 pm
There again, the peculiarly interesting state of trade mark law in the United Kingdom and, not far beyond it, in the territory of the European Economic Area, might be closer to the cause. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 4:13 pm
United States (Fed.Cir. 2000) 220 F.3d at 1368). [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 7:33 am
Juega v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 9:00 am
Recently, in United States 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]
8 Jun 2021, 2:39 pm
§ 227 Unsolicited Advertisement Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 2:58 pm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Reservation Diminishment)Bruguier v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 1:20 pm
This comes at a time when the "don't go to law school" chorus is louder than ever.Law schools in the United States are extremely profitable, and both the New York Law School and Thomas M. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 6:31 am
In April, the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
