Search for: "Burns v Burns"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 4,517
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2009, 4:59 am
Officer came to the defendant's door in Minnesota and smelled burning marijuana from smoking. [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 5:00 am
You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII.] [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 11:32 am
” [cite to USTA v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 7:25 am
Beshear and Roberts v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 7:28 am
Johnson, in which he dissented from a 5–4 decision holding Texas’ prohibition on flag burning violated the First Amendment. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
Simmons and Goss v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:49 pm
In Burns v. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 2:03 pm
Terry v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 6:27 am
Rosenberg of the National Review Online reviews the brief filed by the University of Texas in Fisher v. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 8:58 am
Supreme Court combined into its landmark Brown v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 12:22 pm
Overview The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 subjects hazardous material to federal regulation if it is solid waste.[1] In general, RCRA is designed to address the problems related to hazardous waste disposal at local landfills.[2] RCRA establishes a permitting scheme to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste and determine liability. [read post]
25 May 2018, 10:01 am
Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 7:21 am
Jones v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 3:24 pm
” Burns v. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 12:25 pm
In Allison v. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 4:45 pm
In an earlier case (Tuşalp v. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
Exemptions are construed "narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies 'by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'" (Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 34 NY3d 48, 54, quoting Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566; see Matter of Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 NY3d 217, 225). [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
Exemptions are construed "narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies 'by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'" (Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 34 NY3d 48, 54, quoting Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566; see Matter of Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 NY3d 217, 225). [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 4:23 am
In Schweiker v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 8:30 am
Unmarried women in Scotland grew tired of tapping their feet while their male neighbors dawdled, hoisted pints, and burned peat (I’m guessing that’s a good description of the average work week), and so they were permitted to step up, kneel down, and make honest men out of their male compatriots. [read post]
