Search for: "C. Kemp" Results 1 - 20 of 157
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
The court also concluded that subsection (2)(a)(7) was unconstitutionally viewpoint-based: [C]lause (c) of subsection (2)(a)(7) targets fundamental speech activities. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 9:05 pm by Noah Brown
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp praised the decision for “ensuring the lives of Georgians at all ages are protected. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 10:48 pm by Riann Winget
Kemp, which held that statistical proof cannot establish constitutional discrimination. [read post]
22 May 2023, 4:07 am by Peter J. Sluka
Upon the court-ordered dissolution of a corporation, BCL 1111(c) provides that the court may, “in its discretion” provide for the distribution of the corporation’s property. [read post]
8 May 2023, 5:59 am by Siven Watt
Cárdenas report for the New York Times. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 12:03 pm by Avery Schmitz
The discussion will feature Phillip C. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 10:41 am by Avery Schmitz
Cárdenas, former acting assistant administrator for Latin America at the U.S. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 5:51 pm by INFORRM
General damages Whilst no case was identified to assist the Judge directly with the assessment of general damages, the Judge considered a number of authorities including MGN Limited v Representative Claimants [2015] EWCA Civ 1291, Reid v Price [2020] EWHC 594 (QB), Re TP (Kemp & Kemp, Vol 3 C2-002), ABC and WH v Willock [2015] EWHC 2687 (QB) and Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1650 (QB) from which it is possible to draw the following guidance: The appropriate compensation for… [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 4:07 am by Peter Mahler
For companies taxed as C corporations — as opposed to S corporations and other pass-through entities taxed as partnerships — because they are paid from after-tax income, declared dividends effectively are subject to double taxation at the company and shareholder levels. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 4:55 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” On the question of a bond under BCL § 1118 (c) (2) – which states that the Court “may require” a bond “sufficient to secure petitioner for the fair value of his shares” – Fernandes wrote that the Court should require “a bond in the sum of $210,961.22 representing the unaddressed IRS obligation” imposed upon Fernandes personally. [read post]