Search for: "DOES 1-19"
Results 4721 - 4740
of 19,431
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2012, 6:58 am
Instead, right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a low-income person must fit into a “category,” such as being 65 or over, or totally and permanently disabled, or pregnant, or a child under age 19, or a parent or caretaker relative of a child under age 19. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 12:58 pm
Similar to the San Jose and Los Angeles ordinances, covered employees may use PHELO leave benefits if the employee is unable to work or telework because the employee is: 1. [read post]
7 Nov 2015, 8:53 am
The court goes on to say that in response to McCarthy’s motion asking the trial court to reconsider its original order, the court clarified that order: The court recognized that a claim for defamation falls within the definition of `personal injury’ under § 507–B:1,III(a) and that, unlike §541–B:19, I(d), § 507–B:1, III(a) does not classify the types of claims that constitute `personal injury] as… [read post]
4 Jun 2007, 2:18 am
Added to that group are children between the ages of 18 and 19, and children between the ages of 19 and 24 who are students, provided that their earned income does not generate more than one-half of their support.So, put simply, the tax burden on some taxpayers, age 18 through 24, will be increased so that some businesses can get tax reduction windfalls from equipment purchases they would have made in any event. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 9:58 am
The Court of Justice seems to believe it does. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 6:09 am
In Sweden, this practice of joint physical custody is particularly frequent and has risen from about 1–2% in the mid-1980s to between 30% and 40% of the children with separated parents in 2010. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 6:09 am
In Sweden, this practice of joint physical custody is particularly frequent and has risen from about 1–2% in the mid-1980s to between 30% and 40% of the children with separated parents in 2010. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:30 am
The suit is also again Does 1 to 50,000, presumably some of the customers of these retailers whose privacy could be at stake if Allarco gets its wishes. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am
. [* * *] [1.] [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 12:25 pm
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 2:21 pm
Norton Rose Fulbright attorneys will continue to follow on a daily basis COVID-19-related developments pertinent to health care providers and publish regular updates in the Health Law Pulse. [1] Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, 116th Cong. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 11:13 am
What does ETS require? [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 4:48 pm
” on 1 March between 12pm and 4pm (CET). [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 7:25 pm
”1. [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 7:09 am
Employers should nevertheless be mindful that a negative COVID-19 test result does not mean that the employee will not become contagious in the future. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:23 am
the link leads directly to a government document that was withdrawn on 1 April 2022, although this provides a further link to a more recent document which was last updated on 10 June 2022. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 8:46 am
“The Report does not identify any instances of facilities reporting adoption of the minimum 6-foot social distancing measure to protect workers on processing lines. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
Pursuant to R 108(1), the petition for review is to be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with this provision.The petitioner, who is adversely affected by the impugned decision, bases his petition for review on the violation of his right to be heard pursuant to A 113(1) together with A 112a(2)(c) both in the opposition and the opposition appeal proceedings. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 12:02 am
It does not matter whether: 1) the closure occurs before or after the law takes effect on April 1, 2020; 2) an employee is on leave when closure occurs; 3) an employer furloughs an employee; or 4) the work site temporarily closes and the employer says it will reopen in the future. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 1:06 am
The reason to put this into question was the ECJ’s judgment of 6 October 2021, C-882/19 – Sumal. [read post]
