Search for: "Land v. United States" Results 161 - 180 of 6,813
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2015, 8:27 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here is the opinion: Two Shields Opinion An excerpt: Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 9:00 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
It was Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate on August 2, 1979. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:01 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
United States, 298 U.S. 242 (1936) - an offer of proof that irrigation water could be transported to the land was not too "remote and speculative," and should have been allowed in support of the property owner's contention that the highest and best use of the land taken was to grow sugar cane. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 2:56 am by Walter Olson
“Trump promises ‘massive permit reform’ in infrastructure bill” [Melanie Zanona, The Hill] Murr v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 10:29 pm by cf
Yesterday's 10 Cir. decision (United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 6:07 pm
No. 40, a resolution "Urging the Governor and the Attorney General to withdraw the appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the Hawaii State Supreme Court decision, Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. [read post]
25 Sep 2018, 6:35 pm by Patricia Salkin
Most land use lawyers were unaware that the United States Supreme Court has taken up a significant takings case from Pennsylvania, a case that may revolutionize takings law for years to come. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:19 am by Mike Hanzel
LTC Kageleiry asked the Court to apply the “Toth Doctrine” (United States ex rel. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 12:06 pm
United States (06-7517); Bridge v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 6:48 pm by Steve Vladeck
Three weeks ago, CAAF granted review in United States v. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 1:19 pm by Paul McGreal
Watson argues that the United States should formally repudiate the discovery doctrine set forth in Johnson v. [read post]