Search for: "Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2016, 9:33 am
Aug. 4, 2016), the plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title, claiming that a railroad easement across portions of their lands was abandoned after the United States Railway Association (USRA) transferred rail lines from eight bankrupt rail carriers pursuant to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the Act). [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 9:33 am
Aug. 4, 2016), the plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title, claiming that a railroad easement across portions of their lands was abandoned after the United States Railway Association (USRA) transferred rail lines from eight bankrupt rail carriers pursuant to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the Act). [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 9:33 am
Aug. 4, 2016), the plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title, claiming that a railroad easement across portions of their lands was abandoned after the United States Railway Association (USRA) transferred rail lines from eight bankrupt rail carriers pursuant to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the Act). [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 2:35 pm
Exceptions may apply, including for stock repurchases: occurring in connection with certain non-taxable corporate reorganizations; by regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts; not exceeding $1 million in aggregate during the taxable year; and to the extent treated as a dividend. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
This judgment resulted in a successful reorganization, and all of ASARCO’s creditors were paid in full. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:08 am
The employer’s retaliation is unacceptable and illegal,” said Jeffrey Erskine, OSHA’s acting New England regional administrator. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 9:00 pm
Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 126-27, 95 S. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 10:29 am
Use of Existing Regulatory Standards – The Final Text promotes use of existing regulatory standards as “thresholds of significance” in the CEQA process, even on an informal, case-by-case basis.[6] This change codifies case law[7] allowing agencies to rely on the expertise of another regulatory body, without foreclosing consideration of possible project-specific effects. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 10:31 am
Township of Scott, concluding that a plaintiff alleging that local governments have violated the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment may seek relief directly in federal court, as a constitutional violation occurs at the time of the taking without payment, even if just compensation is subsequently paid.[1] In the 5-4 majority opinion, the Court overruled, in part, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. [read post]
