Search for: "DEP" Results 1601 - 1620 of 5,049
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2017, 8:00 am by David Snyder
After the DEP’s decision, the developer lost the property through foreclosure, and a principal at the firm ended up with a roughly $10 million personal judgment, which prompted the firm to sue the DEP and claim the denial was a regulatory taking. [read post]
30 Dec 2017, 8:00 am by David Snyder
After the DEP’s decision, the developer lost the property through foreclosure, and a principal at the firm ended up with a roughly $10 million personal judgment, which prompted the firm to sue the DEP and claim the denial was a regulatory taking. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:23 pm by Allan Blutstein
State Department releases emails from computer Huma Abedin shared with Anthony WeinerBy Brent D. [read post]
26 Dec 2017, 12:04 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here is “Bridging the Jurisdictional Void: Cross-Deputization Agreements in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 7:24 am by Eugene Volokh
Michael Mattia opposes abortion, and stands on street corners in Center Line, Michigan displaying signs that contain, among other things, graphic images of aborted fetuses. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 12:00 pm by Todd Presnell
Police Dep’t arrested William Lund, but state prosecutors later dismissed the charges. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 12:00 pm by Todd Presnell
Police Dep’t arrested William Lund, but state prosecutors later dismissed the charges. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:31 pm by Anthony Zaller
Dep’t, 460 F.3d 361, 379 (2d Cir. 2006) (employment relationship must involve a “level of control that is direct, obvious and concrete, not merely indirect or abstract”); SEIU Local 32BJ v. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:43 pm
Today's opinion seems especially timely given the numerous wildfires raging throughout Southern California. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 10:15 am by Eugene Volokh
United States Post Office Dep’t (which holds “that nonconsensual one-to-one communications that impinge on the privacy rights of the recipient are not protected under the first amendment”). 6. [read post]