Search for: "Plante v. State"
Results 381 - 400
of 4,463
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2010, 1:52 pm
This position requires daily travel to assigned facilities at various locations in the state. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 7:10 am
See Bunney v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 10:22 am
Defendants desperately want this case in Hawaii state court, with its particular perspective on these things. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 2:59 pm
DLNR Boundaries/Plants: Spittler v. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 2:59 pm
DLNR Boundaries/Plants: Spittler v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 3:33 pm
The decision in question is Case C‑534/10 P Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Schniga GmbH. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 4:00 am
In its 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 1:39 pm
The Court built upon its 2007 holding in Massachusetts v. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 9:00 am
This decision marks the latest action in the ongoing efforts by EPA and states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; particularly in terms of carbon emissions from currently existing power plants. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 9:00 am
Tronox, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:15 am
In May 2022, in Appian v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:15 am
In May 2022, in Appian v. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 6:14 am
In Matter of Laidlaw Energy and Environmental Inc. v Town of Ellicottville, the court found that the conclusion contained in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings that "serious increases in harmful emissions" from the plant would result in an "unacceptable adverse impact" was not arbitrary and should be upheld. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:22 pm
In New Jersey v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 9:00 am
The first case, Merrick v. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 1:20 pm
Campbell, James V. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 3:31 am
Yesterday we talked about the 8th District’s decision in State v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 11:06 am
A recent decision by a federal court in the Southern District of New York, HLP Properties, LLC v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Nevertheless, the OD dealt with the objection in substance […] by stating that claims 1 and 2 of auxiliary request II were not limited to a single plant variety and were therefore allowable under A 53(b) and R 23b(4) EPC 1973. [23] Under these circumstances the objection under A 100(a) in conjunction with A 53(b) against product claims relating to tomato fruits cannot be regarded as a fresh ground of opposition which may be introduced in the appeal proceedings only with the… [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 4:24 am
United States v. [read post]
