Search for: "Law v. Cross"
Results 161 - 180
of 16,751
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2024, 5:13 am
Walmart v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 9:32 am
In United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 7:59 am
” See State v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
Headly, J.), entered August 28, 2023, which granted respondent's cross-motion to dismiss as untimely the petition challenging the agency's partial denial of a request for records in accordance with the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the petition reinstated. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
Headly, J.), entered August 28, 2023, which granted respondent's cross-motion to dismiss as untimely the petition challenging the agency's partial denial of a request for records in accordance with the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the petition reinstated. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 11:30 pm
This marks a huge difference vis-à-vis the dictum of the General Court, not only in this case, but also in the SRB v. [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 9:34 am
The case of Greene v. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 1:13 pm
" Texas claims illegal migration and cross‐border drug smuggling qualify as "invasion," thereby authorizing it to install the buoys even if doing so would otherwise be barred by a federal law. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Four further senior Judges sit on the Committee while the Attorney General and Law Society each get to appoint a further 4 members[28]. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 10:35 am
There is also certain nonhearsay under common law, such as verbal acts. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 7:54 am
In West Virginia v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 7:31 am
State v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 6:30 am
↑ See, e.g., Doe v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 5:52 am
Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 112 F.3d at 872. [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 11:00 pm
”) Since there was no evidence that the defendants acted improperly, or in violation of law, the Appellate Division, Second Department, concurred with the court below and affirmed the dismissal.They clearly didn't bless his absenteeism.# # #DECISIONR. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 12:56 pm
[This post is cross-posted on Lawfare.] [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm
”, and “Cross v. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 7:30 pm
The SPC relied on Chinese law provisions to establish the FRAND rate, drawing from Articles 41 and 49 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Application of Law in Foreign-related Civil Relations. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 8:02 am
Kroh v. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 4:12 am
"] From B.B. v. [read post]
