Search for: "League v. League" Results 181 - 200 of 3,232
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2022, 10:31 am by Gene Takagi
It concluded that a business league’s activity of providing pension and health benefits of its members does not further IRC 501(c)(6) business league purposes. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 1:31 pm by Roger Parloff
A judge today removed a county official from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the hoary post-Civil War provision that bars certain people from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection” against the United States. [read post]
1 Sep 2022, 12:57 pm by INFORRM
Hannon v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2015] EMLR 1, Richard v BBC [2019] Ch 169 and Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] 4 WLR 9). [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
As a result, the league is drawing criticism in ways that are extraordinary for the once-staid group. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 12:37 pm by admin
C-34 (conspiracies relating to professional sport) applies only to conspiracies between professional sports teams and clubs in the same league (see Mohr v. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 6:19 am by Matthew M. Brady and Jesse N. Vazquez
This upcoming season is particularly notable as it marks the second year of what has now been dubbed the “NIL Era” of college football—referring to college athletes’ recently gained ability, following the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
National/Federal A Right-Wing Think Tank Claimed to Be a Church. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 10:52 pm
The Daily Business Review has also written a couple of stories about the Jean v Tylman race. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 9:49 am by Michael Froomkin
Absentee ballots are out, so it’s time for some recommendations for the upcoming judicial elections which will be held on August 23, 2022, the same date as the partisan primary elections. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 3:52 pm by Arthur F. Coon
On July 13, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied numerous depublication requests with respect to, and declined to review on its own motion, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Save the Hill Group v. [read post]