Search for: "Connecticut v. Massachusetts"
Results 41 - 60
of 722
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2007, 8:10 pm
Today the Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments from the parties in Kerrigan et al. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 8:24 am
The Court based its decision on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the victim, whose body was discovered in Connecticut, was killed in Massachusetts. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 11:46 am
First, it is difficult to argue that their claim is not displaced by the Clean Air Act’s authorization of extensive regulation of greenhouse gases post–Massachusetts v. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 11:30 pm
Kligler v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 5:37 pm
So more accurately, the SG is arguing that Massachusetts v. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 8:58 pm
Were the decisions of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California courts exercises in judicial activism? [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 2:14 am
In the case of Griswold v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 6:07 pm
The Connecticut Supreme Court today joined the highest courts in Massachusetts and California in deciding that their state constitutions prohibit a legislative ban on same-sex marriages. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 5:20 am
Background In Noffsinger v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 5:20 am
Background In Noffsinger v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm
Massachusetts’ Tax Backdrop Over the past two decades, Massachusetts has largely shed its historic moniker of Taxachusetts. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:06 pm
Ct. 1992), and a Massachusetts court held the opposite, Foster v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 3:05 am
Daniel Schwartz, of the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin, writes the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, long on my reading list. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
(Byrne v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 5:31 am
Connecticut and Native Village of Kivalina v. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 3:04 pm
The States petitioning for review here (New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) claim standing on the ground that nuclear power plants are within or near their borders and that an accident at one of these plants could harm their citizens.The States on appeal contended that the risk of a spent fuel pool fire must be a Category II rather than a Category I risk, because the risk is affected by mitigation that varies from plant to plant. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 5:31 am
Connecticut and Native Village of Kivalina v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 12:43 pm
We also represent victimized investors throughout the rest of New York State, including Buffalo, Binghamton, Syracuse, Watertown, Utica, Kingston, New York City/Manhattan, Long Island, and everywhere in between, as well as in the surrounding states of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 1:33 am
Massachusetts v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 3:32 pm
Relying on its decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
