Search for: "C. N. Polites v. DEP (Majority Opinion)" Results 1 - 16 of 16
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
The majority barely cited and never analyzed in depth any state precedents like Dep’t  of  Natural  Resources  v  Seaman (1976). [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm by Bernard Bell
  The third category consisted of a single document, an ICE memorandum titled “ICE Ability to Use 212(a)(3)(C) Foreign Policy Charge. [read post]
Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). 7 Matter of A-T, 24 I & N Dec. 275 (BIA 2007). 8 Bah v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 1:34 pm
District Court’s Departure from Foreign Affairs Deference The District Court’s order in Texas is problematic, both factually and legally,[13] but this essay focuses on the fact that the District Court’s opinion breaks with long-standing precedent cautioning judicial restraint and deference to the political branches in matters relating to foreign affairs. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 2:02 pm by Tom Goldstein
Carhart, effectively reversing a prior decision (Stenberg v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm by admin
Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich 638, 647-48; 11 NW2d 272 (1943); Grand Rapids Bd of Ed v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265, 270-71; 65 NW2d 810 (1954); Dep’t of Conservation v Connor, 316 Mich 565, 576-78; 25 NW2d 619 (1947). 9  See Chicago, Detroit, etc v Jacobs, 225 Mich 677; 196 NW 621 (1924); Michigan Air Line Ry v Barnes, 44 Mich 222; 6 NW 651 (1880); Toledo, etc R Co v Dunlap, 47 Mich 456; 11 NW 271 (1882); Detroit, etc R Co… [read post]