Search for: "Whitfield v. State.2"
Results 1 - 20
of 51
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2016, 11:31 pm
Lynch and Williams (2015). [2] Michael Coper, ‘Cole v Whitfield’ in Blackshield et al, The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia (2003)108. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
2. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 1:36 pm
On December 2, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument inWhitfield v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 7:06 am
And Justice Scalia also delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Whitfield v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 7:21 am
Supreme Court decided Whitfield v. [read post]
1 Dec 2004, 6:02 am
granted Aug. 2, 2004), and United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 2:29 pm
Whitfield v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:42 am
In Ruby Mann v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 1:32 pm
The Whitfield amendment turned this study bill into a substantive bill by indefinitely delaying two major Clean Air Act regulations, the utility MACT rule, which reduces mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, and the cross-state air pollution rule, which reduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants that cross state boundaries and harm downwind communities' efforts to achieve healthy air quality. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 1:35 pm
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), hold a hearing on "H.R. ___, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" [See WIMS 2/3/11]. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 10:55 pm
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 12:01 am
See United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
Whitfield-Ortiz v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 116 AD3d 580, 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Askin v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621, 622 [1st Dept 2013]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
Whitfield-Ortiz v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 116 AD3d 580, 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Askin v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621, 622 [1st Dept 2013]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:43 am
” Whitfield joins Bond v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:21 pm
Whitfield's case, United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 1:39 pm
EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 9:51 am
On November 25, 2013, the jury in TQP Development, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, et al., U.S.D.C., E.D. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 8:41 am
" A footnote says, "In State v. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 12:29 pm
So that's how it ends up.Pursuant to the California divorce decree, Whitfield retained no property rights in the patents, so Enovsys had standing to bring and maintain this suit.Enovsys v. [read post]
