Search for: "Does 1-205"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,001
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2016, 7:27 am
” The order would increase the minimum net worth of a “qualified client” under Rule 205-3 from $2 million to $2.1 million and leave intact the minimum $1 million amount for assets under management. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 12:05 pm
Memo. 2015-205 (Oct. 19, 2015): The remaining issues before the Court are ... 2. whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654 where he claims he failed to file his Federal income tax returns timely because he suffered from... [read post]
14 Feb 2015, 3:01 pm
As one commentator has cautioned: "The lawyer about to discontinue an action must always remember, however, that a voluntary discontinuance, by any method at all, is an exception to CPLR 205 (a) and does not get the six months. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 2:55 pm
In particular, subdivision (a) (1) and (2) of that rule addresses the situations of dismissal without and with an order of the court. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 7:19 pm
Despite Section 2-205(1)(B), none of S’s fractional interest is included under Section 2-207(a)(2) because that provision does not apply to fractional interests that are included under Section 2-207(a)(1)(A). [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 9:26 am
Effective August 16, 2021, the dollar thresholds specified in the definition of “qualified client” under Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”) will increase (i) from $2.1 million to $2.2 million (net worth test) and (ii) from $1 million to $1.1 million (assets under management (AUM) test). [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 10:44 am
" 805 ILCS 205//6(1) (West 2002). [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:28 pm
In this [part]: Uniform Probate Code (1) As used in sections other than Section 2-205, “decedent’s nonprobate transfers to others” means the amounts that are included in the augmented estate under Section 2-205. (2) “Fractional interest in property held in joint tenancy with the right of survivorship,” whether the fractional interest is unilaterally severable or not, means the fraction, the numerator of which is… [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 7:22 pm
§ 2513 does not constitute written joinder of or consent to the transfer by the spouse for purposes of subsection (a). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 4:22 am
Here’s our most recent Question of the Week, along with a breakdown of your 205 votes . . . [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:18 am
Maready, 205 N.C. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 7:21 pm
Despite Section 2-205(1)(B), none of S’s fractional interest is included under Section 2-207(a)(2) because that provision does not apply to fractional interests required to be included under Section 2-207(a)(1)(A). [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 12:09 pm
How does this affect Delaware corporations? [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:35 pm
” Various aspects of Section 2-204 are illustrated by Examples 10, 11, and 12 in the Comment to Section 2-205, below. 87 Historical Note. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the Defendant's motion and Plaintiffs appealed.The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, explaining that while General Municipal Law §205-a "gives a firefighter . . . a right of action," to successfully make out such a claim, a plaintiff:1. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the Defendant's motion and Plaintiffs appealed.The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, explaining that while General Municipal Law §205-a "gives a firefighter . . . a right of action," to successfully make out such a claim, a plaintiff:1. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 1:36 pm
Unwiredargues (1) that Galitz is not analogous prior art, (2) thatthe prior art does not teach farther-over-nearer ordering,and (3) that a person of skill in the art would not havebeen motivated to combine Brohoff with Galitz. [read post]
17 Sep 2023, 6:42 pm
What does it mean to settle in a car accident? [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:05 am
The answer on novelty, according to Arnold J., is that the doctrine of equivalence does not apply. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 3:00 am
A police officer eligible to receive General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may file a claim against his or her employer pursuant to General Municipal Law §205-eDiegelman v City of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07817, Court of AppealsGeneral Municipal Law §205-e gives a “Right of action to certain injured or representatives of certain deceased police officers. [read post]