Search for: "Kern v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 270
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2018, 6:33 am
Peter Marcus Kristensen, International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy Joshua Tschantret, Cleansing the Caliphate: Insurgent Violence against Sexual Minorities Ore Koren & Anoop K Sarbahi, State Capacity, Insurgency, and Civil War: A Disaggregated Analysis Christopher McIntosh & Ian Storey, Between Acquisition and Use: Assessing the Likelihood of Nuclear Terrorism Charles Crabtree, Holger L Kern, & Steven Pfaff, Mass Media and the Diffusion of… [read post]
25 May 2018, 10:26 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The allegations also state causes of action for retaliation (see Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52, 948 N.Y.S.2d 263 [1st Dept 2012]).With the exception of Dr. [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, the Court of Appeals instructs that FOIL is to be "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708, also addressed important CEQA baseline and railroad operation preemption issues. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) _____ Cal.App.5th _____ (“AIR”), my post on which can be found here. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]