Search for: "DP v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 378
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2008, 6:58 am
The murrelet was previously deemed a "distinct population segment" (or DPS) in the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, and listed as threatened in those three states. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 1:53 am
Humane- Society v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 11:13 am
See Segura v. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 10:34 am
” LAC 33:V.11103. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 10:34 am
” LAC 33:V.11103. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 12:06 pm
District Court for the District of Columbia released a memorandum decision (Case 1:11-cv-01414 –BJR Humane Society of the United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 10:35 am
In a 1991 opinion, State v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 12:59 pm
Greetings from the Blue Ridge.Here is a copy of the military judge's ruling in United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2007, 12:11 pm
Bowers v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 8:39 am
Looking at these, we'd have to say that Alabama (and the Eleventh Circuit) have just about the most favorable sales representative precedent of any state in the country.Anyway, here they are:Harper v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 8:49 am
State of North Carolina et al. or Carcano v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 6:15 pm
The bald eagle’s status was changed to threatened in all states in 1995. 60 Fed. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 4:46 pm
The United States Supreme Court recently heard argument in Weyerhaeuser Company v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 6:29 am
From Kuck v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 5:01 pm
This record thus contains ample support for the reasons NMFS stated when it decided to use the DPS Policy. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 3:03 pm
The state of Alaska also claimed the Service failed to adequately respond to its public comments, as required by the Act’s state cooperation provisions. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 6:37 am
Kiminiski v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 5:52 pm
Defenders of Wildlife v. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 4:22 pm
” LAC 33:V.11103. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 8:11 am
(c) The communication furthermore announced that, should the applicant ask for a decision on the state of the file without filing further requests, amendments or comments, the application would then be refused "based on the above arguments taken in combination with the arguments provided in the summons" (see communication B, point 3).V. [read post]
