Search for: "State v. Burden"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 22,165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2012, 10:15 am
See Shankle v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 10:13 am
Question presented: Should the Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand to dismiss the appeal as moot, in accordance with United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 8:06 am
Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 2:56 pm
And these powers must be used consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, a doctrine that restricts state actions that impose too heavy a burden on interstate commerce. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 5:46 am
In Hertz Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
In Girard v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 8:37 am
” Bowen v. [read post]
7 May 2023, 7:42 am
Padilla One More Time: Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Atkinson v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 5:20 am
In Skinner v. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 3:03 pm
(Park v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 7:03 pm
Apr. 20, 2012), United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 8:55 pm
Div. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 8:17 am
This decision will have an enormous impact on states across the country seeking to ease the burdens caused by rampant illegal immigration. [read post]
14 Jul 2024, 2:42 pm
Assoc. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:27 am
The post Case Preview: McDonald (Deceased) v National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:16 am
State 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]
20 Aug 2007, 6:48 pm
Builders, LLC v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:13 am
In Colon v. [read post]
