Search for: "Reese v. US" Results 141 - 160 of 239
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
Entities subject to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law Reese v Daines, 20 Misc 3d 1145(A) Justice NeMoyer’s ruling in the Reese case provides summaries of the basic issues and case law involved in satisfying the mandates of New York’s Open Meetings Law (OML) (Public Officers Law § 100 et seq) and its Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law Section 84 et. seq. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 6:26 am
  In a recent tax appeal before the Oregon Tax Court, CLP Elements LLC v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm by WSLL
Beatty of Beatty, Wozniak & Reese, PC. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:15 pm by Bexis
 This footnote strikes us as frankly bizarre. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 7:54 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Commentator: Tony Reese, UC Irvine Is the fair use analysis of markets descriptive or normative? [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 7:05 am by Christopher G. Hill
  In its article entitled, “Jury trial waiver forfeited in scheduling order,” the Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly noted that the Fairfax County Circuit Court recently ruled in the case of Reese Merrifalls, LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm by Bexis
Reese, 684 S.E.2d at 283-85 (automobile); Yarbrough v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:24 am
  The Court of Appeals also noted that the United States Supreme Court stated a “basic teaching of representative government … that elected officials represent all of those who elect them, and not merely those who are their neighbors," citing Dusch (387 US 112, Dallas County, Alabama v Reese (421 US 477) and Fortson v Dorsey, 379 US 433. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:48 pm by Idaho State Police
Occupants transported were treated for minor injuries.This crash is still under investigation by Corporal Barnes with assistance from Corporal V. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm by Eugene Volokh
Reese, 627 F.3d 792, 801–02 (10th Cir.2010) (applying intermediate scrutiny to review of § 922(g)(8)); United States v. [read post]