Search for: "Logic Leasing v. Administrative Inf*"
Results 41 - 53
of 53
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2013, 6:01 pm
” (R. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:26 am
That case is pending in the Supreme Judicial Court under the caption Commonwealth v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Skeptical CEQA reform advocates should consider the following “baker’s dozen” case examples: The Supreme Court has held that CEQA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement broadly applies, extending it (logically, but arguably even beyond the statute’s literal language) by holding it applies to actions challenging a decision that a project is CEQA-exempt. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Skeptical CEQA reform advocates should consider the following “baker’s dozen” case examples: The Supreme Court has held that CEQA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement broadly applies, extending it (logically, but arguably even beyond the statute’s literal language) by holding it applies to actions challenging a decision that a project is CEQA-exempt. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
(Goleta Union School Dist. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
(Goleta Union School Dist. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:00 am
In Yee v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 1:24 pm
Similarly, the Seventh Circuit observed that, while ' there may be room for applying the doctrines of abstention or primary jurisdiction . . . in cases in which a state has a formal administrative proceeding in progress that the citizens' suit would disrupt, ' abstention in RCRA ordinarily would amount to ' an end run around the RCRA.' PMC, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:19 pm
There are two territorial levels of local administration - local government - in Latvia. [read post]
7 May 2009, 2:07 pm
Since section 112 only addresses the termination of service contracts, this amendment really isn't absolutely necessary, and this is especially so in light of Justice Paul Perel's decision in the case of PSCC No. 668 v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:19 pm
Logic suggests that since under Trinko the integrated monopolist is free to refuse to deal entirely, it should be free to set the terms – including a price squeeze – on which it will deal with rivals.In Linkline Communications v. [read post]
13 Feb 2007, 5:25 am
For a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenant's Association v. [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 10:04 am
., Ltd. v. [read post]
