Search for: "WILLIAMSON v. STATE" Results 1 - 20 of 932
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Aug 2020, 11:58 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Part II will discuss the history of the state-litigation requirement and the theoretical underpinnings of the Williamson County decision in which the state-litigation requirement was imposed. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 2:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Williamson of the Monroe County Common Pleas Court confirmed in the case of Farina v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 12:02 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
In doing so, the Court explicitly overturned the second prong of the so-called Williamson County ripeness test that required property owners to seek a remedy through state action -- usually just compensation -- for the alleged taking before coming to federal court. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 11:35 am by Adam Feldman
Township of Scott, which overturned the court’s precedent on the issue of eminent domain in the state law context in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 2:51 pm by Jane S. Schacter
Especially menacing for supporters of abortion rights is the citation in Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent to Williamson v. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 9:05 pm by Dan Flynn
 A federal district court judge in Texas has set the starting trial date for the United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 4:08 am by Tyson Benson
  During a means-plus-function analysis, the court engages in a two-step inquiry to construe the claim limitations at issue as set forth in Williamson v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 11:15 am by Adam Feldman
Township of Scott, in which she questioned the basis for the majority’s overturning the decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. [read post]
20 May 2020, 2:52 pm by Bona Law PC
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 224 (1993); While the plaintiff’s claims were under the Robinson-Patman price discrimination statute, the Court explicitly stated that the test for predatory pricing claims under Sherman Act Section 2 were the same. [read post]