Search for: "State v. F. F. W." Results 1 - 20 of 4,548
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2024, 6:51 am by Kelly Bachich Sheehan
In the 2012 United States Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 3:52 pm by Reference Staff
For scholarly publications, Rule 10.7.1(d) adds a descriptive parenthetical note for citing cases where an enslaved person was involved, and provides examples like “Wall v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 2:52 pm by John Hempill and Karl Buhler
This is an issue that actually dates back to the seminal 2005 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454–55 (7th Cir. 1996) (“a simple two-party contract is not ‘equivalent to any exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright’ and therefore may be enforced”) and MLGenius Holdings LLC v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm by Ryan Goodman
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am by Eric Goldman
W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
” In addition, if more states enact fair access laws, financial institutions may be required to comply with an increasing number of fair access laws that may be inconsistent from state to state. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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]