Search for: "State v. Doyle"
Results 221 - 240
of 522
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2020, 6:17 am
That case, Stoyas v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
Yesterday the US Supreme Court, on a narrow 5-4 majority, ordered the state of California to reduce prison crowding because of inadequate medical care in a case style Brown v. [read post]
5 Sep 2009, 7:38 am
Van Hollen for his decision last month not to defend the state's new domestic registry in Appling v. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 7:50 pm
And in State v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 1:16 pm
(Professional Engineers in California Government v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 4:21 pm
Two recent decisions, Economou v de Freitas and Doyle v Smith, provide some guidance on this question, but seem to pull in slightly different directions. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 11:49 am
” The Doyle v. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 9:01 am
State v. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 7:57 pm
Moore v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
In Alden v Maine, 527 US 706, the Supreme Court of the United States found that State sovereign immunity is "implicit in the constitutional design. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
While the Supreme Court has not retreated from the core holding in Ferber, it has made shutting down the marketplace more difficult with its child pornography holdings in a series of cases, including United States v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 7:27 am
Doyle (Wis. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 8:57 am
"An agreement that violates the term limits rule is against public policy (see Matter of City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v Doyle, 66 AD3d 1495; Karedes v Village of Endicott, 297 AD2d 413, 415). [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:23 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:57 am
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Len Boselovic covers Sandifer v. [read post]
24 May 2013, 7:19 am
Fraser discusses Northwest, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 7:26 am
” Finally, Joan Biskupic of the USA Today previews next week’s argument in United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:50 pm
See United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm
The Henderson v Henderson rule did not apply for two reasons. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
