Search for: "Plante v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 4,065
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2015, 1:38 pm
Washington (Indian Gaming Compact - "Most-favored Tribe")* State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2015state.htmlEagleman v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 9:10 am
<> Kathy Little v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 6:50 am
Brigadier General Mark Martins’s statement regarding this week’s hearings in United States v. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 10:01 pm
Robinson v. [read post]
11 May 2021, 11:48 am
California Coastkeeper Alliance v. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 10:53 am
Complicating any effort to simply get rid of climate change regulation of the power sector was the Supreme Court prior ruling in Massachusetts. v. [read post]
15 Sep 2007, 9:51 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 11:40 am
The reverberations of the Supreme Court’s April 2, 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 5:39 am
The example in the headline, United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2006, 6:36 am
Marisa Kwiatkowski writes today in the NWI Times:CROWN POINT | The state appeals court's reversal of a concrete-plant case was too little too late for developer Tim Heidbreder. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 7:38 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 1:44 pm
The CSAPR sets limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28 upwind states in the eastern part of the country. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 8:53 am
’ ConocoPhillips Co. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 2:06 am
State v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 7:10 am
He came back, was caught, and now argues that cultivation is not an aggravated felony because the state statute (California) lists such things as cultivating, planting, harvesting, drying and processing. [read post]
17 May 2016, 10:11 am
Supreme Court’s April 19 decision in Hughes v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 2:32 pm
In Government of the Province of Manitoba v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 11:28 pm
he United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") justifies the Plant Protection Act ("PPA")(7 U.S.C. [read post]
