Search for: "Richmond v. Metropolitan Authority"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2009, 1:41 am
Metropolitan Transit Authority
U.S. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 1:14 pm
The court relied on its prior decision in Richmond Metropolitan Authority v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Territorial Limitation of 216.5(a)(2) -- 216.5(a)(2)(i) This new subdivision applies only to claims "occurring" in the counties of Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester, and their adjacent waters. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Territorial Limitation of 216.5(a)(2) -- 216.5(a)(2)(i) This new subdivision applies only to claims "occurring" in the counties of Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester, and their adjacent waters. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 5:52 am
The appellants had relied upon the view of May J in Summers v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames [2018] EWHC 782 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 4729, at [24], that the expression “those in the locality” in section 59 of the 2014 Act “must be read to include those who regularly visit or work in the locality, in addition to residents”. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 8:55 am
Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s decision in City of Boise v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
Richmond Hill (Village), [1955] 4 D.L.R. 572, [1955] O.R. 806 (Ont. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:19 am
Forty-five years ago, the baseball world trained its attention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its impending decision in the case of Wisconsin v. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 10:16 am
Tim Kevan is the author of The BabyBarista Files, a series of novels published by Bloomsbury. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm
The agreement also is significant because it documents EPA’s recognition and approval of West Virginia’s program and the DEP’s capabilities and authorities for addressing cleanups under the state program. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm
The proposed settlement was entered into under the authority granted EPA in Section 122(h) of CERCLA, and requires the Respondents to pay $600,000.00 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund in settlement of past costs. [read post]
