Search for: "Chevron Industries Inc" Results 141 - 160 of 250
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2011, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
The timing of 315 estoppel attachment was explored in Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 6:59 am by Joy Waltemath
The dispatchers also have to prioritize outages, giving preference to certain industrial customers, and juggle logistical considerations too, for which there are no standard operating procedures to guide them. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 12:01 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).The court needed to explain why it was not a regulatory taking for the government to try and obtain the $10 milion the plaintiff was obligated by law to pay, but did not. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 6:44 am by Joy Waltemath
In reviewing an agency regulation promulgated through rulemaking, the court was required to apply the two-step analytical framework outlined in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 5:48 am
 The Court, which evaluated the Commission’s interpretation of the Exchange Act under the two-step analysis enumerated by the Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
  Chevron[2] deference is still nominally the law as of this writing,[3] but litigants are acting as if the decision that gave that doctrine its name has already been overturned. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 9:39 am by Patricia Salkin
California Building Industry Assn. v City of San Jose, S212072 (June 15, 2015) involved Plaintiff trade association’s challenge to Defendant City’s ordinance to require developments containing 20 or more units to make 15% of those units available for low or moderate income purchase. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 4:22 am by Charles Sartain
Bilked 21 investors in oil deals by invoking the name of a Chevron-affiliated company and used phony letters, email addresses and bank account. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 3:53 am by Edith Roberts
Cougar Den Inc. the court ruled 5-4 that members of an Indian tribe are exempt under an 1855 treaty from paying state taxes on fuel transported to the reservation on public highways. [read post]