Search for: "City of L. A. v. County of L. A." Results 61 - 80 of 1,256
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2017, 7:58 am by MBettman
Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Cuyahoga County, for Amici Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office and Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, in support of City of Cleveland Joseph C. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 3:28 pm
Rapid Transit District (1990) 52 Cal.3d 266, 274–275; City of Santa Clara v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 8:25 am by Laura Orr
City of Medford et al., (TC 0801317) (CA A147497) (SC S061463) “On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Jackson County Circuit Court, Mark S. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 8:25 am by Laura Orr
City of Medford et al., (TC 0801317) (CA A147497) (SC S061463) “On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Jackson County Circuit Court, Mark S. [read post]
18 May 2011, 3:04 am
The ash cloud from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano that shut down much of Europe's air space in April 2010 has been held to be an example of "extraordinary circumstances" under Art 5(3) of EC Regulation 261/2004 (the Regulation), exempting airlines from paying compensation for the cancellation of flights.In Marshall v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA [Mayor's and City of London County Court, 13 December 2010], the… [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 5:41 am by Bridget Crawford
Dudelson, Brooklyn, For Appellant Lambda Legal Defense And Education Fund, Inc., New York (Susan L. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 8:04 pm
Our brief argues Williamson County only requires a "final decision" by the government applying existing land use regulations to the property, and a property owner is under no obligation to change the law before asserting her federal takings claim:A claim that a land use regulation takes property in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause is ripe for judicial review under Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. [read post]