Search for: "Warren v. Warren"
Results 101 - 120
of 2,903
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2024, 9:00 pm
It’s true that CFPB v. [read post]
18 May 2024, 9:30 pm
Laurence Tribe says that Chief Justice Warren's voice was more gravelly. [read post]
18 May 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Gail Weinstein, Philip Richter, and Warren de Weid, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, on Saturday, May 18, 2024 Editor's Note: Gail Weinstein is Senior Counsel, and Philip Richter and Warren de Wied are Partners at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. [read post]
18 May 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Gail Weinstein, Philip Richter, and Warren de Weid, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, on Saturday, May 18, 2024 Editor's Note: Gail Weinstein is Senior Counsel, and Philip Richter and Warren de Wied are Partners at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although such efforts to eradicate [*2]EWM from Lake George have cost the LGPC hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and approximately $7 million in total, there has been limited success on the global impact of the EWM population in Lake George.In February 2021, following years of using benthic mat and hand harvesting removal methods, the LGPC requested a preliminary consultation and informal assessment from the APA regarding the application of a herbicide, ProcellaCOR EC (hereinafter… [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although such efforts to eradicate [*2]EWM from Lake George have cost the LGPC hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and approximately $7 million in total, there has been limited success on the global impact of the EWM population in Lake George.In February 2021, following years of using benthic mat and hand harvesting removal methods, the LGPC requested a preliminary consultation and informal assessment from the APA regarding the application of a herbicide, ProcellaCOR EC (hereinafter… [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:30 am
The list here is impressive and includes: People v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Stanley v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Chief Justice Warren wrote the 1954 Brown v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
, Griswold v. [read post]
20 Apr 2024, 8:23 am
Warren, Rogalinski). [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 6:00 pm
V. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 9:21 am
A second Warren Court case from 1968, Powell v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Saturday, April 6, 2024 Tags: Climate Disclosure, order, SEC, securities act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 2024 Annual Meeting Filing and Disclosure Requirements Posted by Brian V. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Saturday, April 6, 2024 Tags: Climate Disclosure, order, SEC, securities act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 2024 Annual Meeting Filing and Disclosure Requirements Posted by Brian V. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that "the [Board} is the administrative agency responsible for making the final determination" and the court's role "is to examine whether the [Board's] determination was supported by substantial evidence".Citing Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 191 AD3d 1129, the Appellate Division explained that there must be sufficient findings of facts in the first instance and the Appellate Division could not supply the… [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that "the [Board} is the administrative agency responsible for making the final determination" and the court's role "is to examine whether the [Board's] determination was supported by substantial evidence".Citing Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 191 AD3d 1129, the Appellate Division explained that there must be sufficient findings of facts in the first instance and the Appellate Division could not supply the… [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
Holder and Rucho v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 1:18 pm
Pretty much everyone -- including but not limited to Earl Warren to Stanley Mosk -- thought that California didn't allow one person to run for two different offices at the same election.But the Court of Appeal decides today that that's wrong; that one person can, indeed, run for multiple offices if s/he so decides. [read post]