Search for: "State v. Pass"
Results 161 - 180
of 28,160
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 8:39 am
A.J.Z. v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
It now concludes that none of the claims passes muster. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:50 am
After all, a derivative plaintiff sues in a representative capacity to vindicate a wrong done to the entity, the recovery of which ultimately passes through to the equity owners pro rata, so every shareholder, at least in theory, has some degree of “interest” in the outcome of the case. [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:05 pm
Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm
OCC’s Letter on Uniform Federal Banking Standards On November 9, 2023, the General Counsel of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) issued a letter to the CEOs of all national banks and federal savings associations (“FSAs”) addressing uniform federal banking standards.[13] In the letter, the OCC explains that it is aware that some states have passed laws or taken other actions that “purport to apply to… [read post]
12 May 2024, 1:42 pm
VILER, Appellants, v. [read post]
11 May 2024, 7:46 am
The court rejected those arguments because it had already decided in Licavoli v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:45 am
See NCAA v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:01 pm
In the landmark case of Yick Wo v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 9:32 am
State v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm
The Act prohibits OFAC from releasing any Russian sovereign asset that is “blocked or effectively immobilized” by the United States before a) the President has certified that the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine have ceased, and Ukraine’s claims against Russia have either been satisfied or are being resolved by a bona fide international mechanism, and b) Congress is given 30 days’ advance notice and an opportunity to pass a resolution of disapproval. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:18 pm
In the case of A.K. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:00 pm
So pretty much anyone would have predicted that once California passed the underlying statute, some gun owner somewhere would sue.Similarly, it's not surprising that plaintiffs lost. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:01 pm
The Florida “crack bear” bill passed, so it’s now a little easier to justify killing a bear in that state. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am
In Raytheon Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
"Plaintiffs plead that the 1971 Hecht-Calandra Act,[FN7] which mandated the SHSAT for three of the nine specialized high schools, was passed "to thwart the City's investigation of the test's potential bias against Black and Puerto Rican students. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
"Plaintiffs plead that the 1971 Hecht-Calandra Act,[FN7] which mandated the SHSAT for three of the nine specialized high schools, was passed "to thwart the City's investigation of the test's potential bias against Black and Puerto Rican students. [read post]
