Search for: "Still v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 49,804
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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, 9:06 pm by Dan Flynn
  FDA approvals still only cover lab-grown meat from two companies — Upside Foods and Good Meat. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:19 pm
State deficiencies in climate litigations and actions of judges Laurent Fonbaustier / Renaud Braillet  165   Part IV: Cities, States and Climate Change: Between Competition, Conflict and Cooperation Global climate governance turning translocal Delphine Misonne 181   America’s Climate Change Policy: Federalism in Action Daniel Esty  193    Local policies on climate change in a centralized State: The Example of France Camille… [read post]
13 May 2024, 3:37 pm by Guest Author
Courts will still be obligated to respect agencies’ fact-based findings under the State Farm standard regardless of what happens to Chevron deference. [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, 9:31 pm by Steven Calabresi
Washington, D.C. super-lawyer, Gene Schaerr, has filed an amicus brief in United States v. [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]