Search for: "Does 1-58"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 2,966
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2012, 7:10 am
State, 58 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1952)). [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 12:38 pm
Similarly aimed construction commenced on Butterfield Road (Route 56) in DuPage on June 1, 2011. [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 12:38 pm
Similarly aimed construction commenced on Butterfield Road (Route 56) in DuPage on June 1, 2011. [read post]
30 Sep 2012, 7:07 pm
It should be noted that, with very rare exceptions, the British ColumbiaWills Act does not recognize holograph wills as valid wills.Mr. [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 12:37 pm
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential coverage under an… [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 11:37 am
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential coverage under an… [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 5:07 am
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential… [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 1:17 pm
The Court held it is not unreasonable, nor does it burden employers to require them to provide reasonably prompt notice of discharge to an employee. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 5:54 pm
(This does not mean the facts will necessarily be sufficient – see People v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 9:39 am
Contrary to the rhetoric, the UK does tend to do as it is told by the court, as it has promised to by signing up to the ECHR in the first place. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 1:34 pm
Compare yours: 1) IL average: $212—Sangamon-$324, Macon-$316, Logan-$313, Christian-$309 IN: $175, IA: $235, KS: $60.5, MI: $108, MN: $151, MO: $110, NE: $176, ND: $58, OH: $122, SD: $94, WI: $115. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 8:56 am
Google’s Auction Insights report, released in May, isn’t perfect, but it does shed more light on what your competitors are doing. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 7:13 am
(para. 21) It then drew a distinction between two ways in which the “real and substantial connection” test had been used in the jurisprudence: (1) as a constitutional rule; and (2) as a conflict of laws rule. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 7:13 am
(para. 21) It then drew a distinction between two ways in which the “real and substantial connection” test had been used in the jurisprudence: (1) as a constitutional rule; and (2) as a conflict of laws rule. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 12:50 pm
Most recently, Notice 2012-58 provides for a “safe harbor” employers can use relating to ongoing employees. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 11:01 am
`Stars in Alignment’ Allstate spent 58 percent of its premium income in 2006 for claim payouts and the costs of the process compared with 79 percent in 1996, according to filings with the U.S. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 9:23 pm
Does anyone really care? [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 2:42 pm
Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554, 557-58 (Fla. 2005). [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 5:42 am
" He does a little fist pump on "speaker. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 6:01 am
Coverage under an employer-sponsored plan is considered affordable to a particular employee if the employee’s required contribution (within the meaning of IRC Sec. 5000A(e)(1)(B)) to the plan does not exceed 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income for the taxable year. [read post]
