Search for: "Fox v. Miller*"
Results 81 - 100
of 176
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2015, 8:16 am
There’s been a lot of talk about Ventura v. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 4:04 pm
In Miller v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 5:30 pm
Ebola: Individual’s Freedoms v. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 7:03 pm
” Additionally, Levine relies heavily on United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 4:14 am
Gonzales v. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 8:00 am
P. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 8:19 pm
P., V. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
Fox Television Stations, Inc. to justify changed findings that underlie changed regulation. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
In Raven v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 9:45 am
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 3:41 pm
An individual may have an odor of alcohol but not be intoxicated or impaired within the legal definition as held in People v Miller and Mulvean v Fox. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 12:30 pm
Fox, Unclean Lips analyzes the variable historical and cultural factors that account for the central role Jews have played in the struggles over obscenity and censorship in the modern United States.More information, including the Introduction and TOC, is available here. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 10:29 am
The Court summarized the law on vested rights in New York as follows: " a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development" (Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41, 47; see Matter of RC Enters. v Town of Patterson, 42 AD3d 542, 544; Matter of Lefrak Forest Hills Corp.… [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 10:29 am
The Court summarized the law on vested rights in New York as follows: " a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development" (Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41, 47; see Matter of RC Enters. v Town of Patterson, 42 AD3d 542, 544; Matter of Lefrak Forest Hills Corp. v… [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 4:05 pm
Fox v Boulter, 5 December 2013 (Tugendhat J). [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 12:16 pm
Entm’t 2000, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 1:33 pm
In Fried v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 4:38 pm
The Sixth District Court of Appeal recently presided over such a conflict in Save Panoche Valley v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
Strangelove" (16) "Flight of the Conchords" (4) "Game Change" (2) "Get Smart" (1) "Gran Torino" (10) "Grey Gardens" (13) "I Shouldn't Be Alive" (4) "Limelight" (3) "Meet the Press" (20) "Moby Dick" (5) "My Dinner with Andre" (34) "Mystery Science Theater" (2) "Project Runway" (78) "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion" (3) "Seinfeld" (72) "Sex and the City" (14) "Slacker" (11) "Slumdog Millionaire" (16) "SNL" (60) "Sopranos" (50) "South Park" (71) "Star Trek" (12) "Star Wars" (25) "Survivor" (50)… [read post]
