Search for: "PARKS V. CITIZENS PROPERTY"
Results 161 - 180
of 587
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2019, 8:07 am
This initiative authorizes a gross receipts tax on the lease of commercial property for landlords with annual gross receipts over $1 million. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
The Bladensburg Peace CrossThe Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a cross-shaped monument may be preserved on public land because it does not violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause.Cultural property watchers may not have noticed the case of American Legion et al. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 4:02 am
Janus v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 12:30 pm
Davison v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 12:30 pm
Davison v. [read post]
21 May 2019, 12:34 pm
It might merely mean attachment to or penetration of personal property, or it might suggest broader types of interference with property interests. [read post]
1 May 2019, 2:43 pm
The Sixth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s “property-based” approach in United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 2:45 pm
” Congress assured the state and its citizens that “their [lands] wouldn’t be treated just like” federally owned property. [read post]
23 Mar 2019, 4:27 pm
City of Marshfield, Wis., 203 F.3d 487, 494 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that private property abutted by public park constituted public forum). [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 10:46 am
The Sullivan Cases Abernathy v. [read post]
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land
21 Feb 2019, 10:37 am
In 1971, in a case called Lemon v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
Court of Appeal’s ruling in R. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:44 pm
Kelo v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm
Hilliard v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
See also Comm’rs of Parks & Boulevards of City of Detroit v Moesta, 91 Mich 149, 152-53; 51 NW 903 (1892); In re Edward J. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
As the Court observed in the famous New York Times v. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 9:01 pm
” In Judge’s Graffeo’s words: “Just as the state could not force any particular citizen to post a pro-Confederacy sign in his or her front lawn, so too can the state not commandeer the city’s property for the state’s preferred message. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 8:05 am
As the Supreme Court correctly found, the published notice of hearing referenced section 100-18 of the Code of the Village of Tuxedo Park, which was sufficient to fairly apprise the average interested citizen, including the petitioner, that the “line of sight” variance was being sought. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
A property owner sought a demolition permit (for an existing dilapidated home) and design approval for an eight-unit multi-family building. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:59 am
Industry Assn. v. [read post]
