Search for: "IN THE MATTER OF THE MONTANA RULES" Results 141 - 160 of 817
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Aug 2015, 7:35 am
As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 9:28 am
The case that prompted the agency's review started in Montana in the fall of 2011. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:21 pm by Drew Falkenstein
The Billings Gazette reported today that Montana senator Jon Tester plans to introduce a bill in Congress to Modify the Federal Meat Inspection Act. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:26 am by David Oxenford
The slides that I used for my presentation at the last of these conferences, the Montana Broadcasters Annual Convention, are available here. [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 10:42 pm by Barry Barnett
Location The place of suit matters a lot in civil cases. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 3:20 am
Peter Weissman at Blank Rome suggests that "[i]t may be prudent to describe patentably “distinct” subject matter in separate applications rather than combining common subject matter in a single application. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 3:38 am by SHG
Yes, their constituents matter. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 7:18 am by John Jascob
In their ongoing court challenge to the rule, regulators from Massachusetts and Montana argued that the SEC’s amendments to Regulation A violate the plain meaning of the Securities Act, overstep the Commission’s delegated authority, and strip investors of valuable state law protections (Lindeen v. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 3:39 pm by Zak Gowen
Zito was accused of trying to convince a rival to divide up Montana and Wyoming for publicly funded crack-sealing projects on highways. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 11:01 am by Mark J. Levin
[T]he need for greater scrutiny regarding a party’s waiver of their constitutional right to a jury trial in terms of these arbitration agreement matters is imperative. [read post]
2 Dec 2022, 2:49 pm by Kalvis Golde
Montana, Deveraux asks the justices to rule that denying a motion to remove a biased juror for cause is a sufficiently egregious Sixth Amendment violation to require a new trial. [read post]