Search for: "State Board of Equalization v. Watson"
Results 1 - 20
of 24
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 6:45 am
They rely on the equal sovereignty principle, which the Supreme Court applied in Shelby County v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 7:45 am
But do they create an equal barrier for all asylum seekers? [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 2:00 pm
(Before July 1, 2017, the agency responsible for collecting sales and use taxes was the State Board of Equalization. [read post]
16 Oct 2022, 7:24 am
[xii] Tyler Watson, who claimed that Dick’s violated the state’s discrimination statutes after they refused to sell him a rifle because he was not at least 21 years old, has reportedly reached an agreement to end a pending lawsuit. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 9:05 pm
On the merger front, for example, the DOJ has challenged Penguin Random House’s proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster on the ground that the deal would supposedly reduce competition for publishing rights and suppress compensation paid to authors.17 The FTC has also had several recent high profile investigations and settlements of labor organizations, including the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama and the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am
To a political scientist, one way is by viewing it as a power play by the rabbinate, an attempt many centuries before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v Aaron to engage in a performative utterance establishing themselves as the “ultimate interpreters” of the document in question, whether the Torah or the Constitution. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
Compared to the rest of the world, the United States does not have a unique problem with tax evasion. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 1:16 pm
Yafai v. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am
Recent cases citing these rights together include Watson v Campos [2016] IEHC 18 (14 January 2016) [28] (Barrett J); Rooney v Shell E&P Ireland [2017] IEHC 63 (20 January 2017) [31]-[32] (Ní Raifeartaigh J); Ryanair v Channel 4 Television [2017] IEHC 651 (05 October 2017) [49]-[52] (Meenan J). [read post]
Del. high court says undisclosed post-merger role made Tower CEO self-interested, board ill informed
12 Jul 2020, 5:40 pm
In re Towers Watson & Co. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 5:50 am
However, if the code maintains progressivity while striving to treat similarly-situated couples equally (couple’s neutrality), so that both couples pay $3,500 in taxes ($1,000 on the first $10,000 and $2,500 on the second $10,000), marriage neutrality will be violated, since Adam and Bailey and Colin and Diane face a higher tax burden than they did when filing individually. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 7:55 am
Monroe County Board of Education, which covers only conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 4:00 pm
District Court Judge Michael Watson ruled yesterday in the case Mays et. al v. [read post]
8 Apr 2018, 8:26 pm
But that is equally true immediately after the vote to disaffiliate! [read post]
8 Apr 2018, 2:09 pm
But that is equally true immediately after the vote to disaffiliate! [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am
“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings.Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14… [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 9:10 am
(Lex Machina) Who will the Supreme Court decide for in King v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:39 am
SSUK has only one employee, who was not on board the Steve Irwin. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 8:21 pm
” Watson v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 2:37 pm
Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 563 (2003), and State v. [read post]
