Search for: "Burns v. Burns"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 4,579
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2011, 3:01 am
This week, I will continue, looking at a New York decision, Lewiarz v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 8:21 am
The cat ended up with a burned paw and the monkey with a full stomach. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 5:57 am
Facts: This case (Loy et al v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:57 am
The rules are a reaction to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 2:30 am
Tatuaje Cigars, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 2:24 pm
In Mayfield v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:14 am
The court considered, but ultimately did not decide, a different cap application issue in 2012 in Ronald Luri v. [read post]
22 Aug 2024, 4:50 am
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company , Inc. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 3:28 am
Indeed, Marcelline Burns, a primary researcher in the development of the SFSTs, has stated the initial laboratory studies have limited relevance to understanding the use and accuracy of the SFSTs twenty-five years later in field settings.4 Have the subsequent Colorado, Florida, and San Diego SFST field studies rectified the earlier problems? [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 12:41 pm
As suggested here, Wood v. [read post]
5 Nov 2008, 12:44 am
Thus, in Burns 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]
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]
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]
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]
25 May 2018, 10:01 am
Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
Simmons and Goss v. [read post]
