Search for: "Doyle v. State" Results 161 - 180 of 522
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
This is presumably because the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing (above) 503 (Finlay CJ);Doyle v Garda Commissioner [1999] 1 IR 249, [1998] 1 ILRM 229, [1997] IEHC 147 (27 August 1997); and see Warman v Fournier 2010 ONSC 2126 (CanLII) (3 May 2010)). [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 5:56 am by Edith Roberts
At the Notice and Comment blog, David Feder discusses Esquivel-Quintana v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 4:40 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on Monday’s decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 4:07 am by SHG
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in his concurrence in Brown v. [read post]
8 May 2016, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Supreme Court‘s recent decision in Pritchard v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 5:07 am
The opinion is the latest in a string of Doyle violations found by the Third Circuit (United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 11:05 am by Cody M. Poplin
The Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 comes in response to the ongoing FBI v. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 7:32 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Herman, Legislative Attorney; Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 4:25 pm by Steve Vladeck
As we suggested in our preview of Tuesday’s oral argument in Ross v. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 11:34 am by Andrew Hamm
United States and United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 1:39 pm
Doyle appealed, and Ms. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]