Search for: "State v. $18,000" Results 201 - 220 of 233
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
12 Apr 2013, 9:13 am by Rebecca Tushnet
By 1905 dual system was accepted. 18,000 registrations by 1880. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
On 1 August 2022, judgment was handed down in Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) by Chamberlain J. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 5:06 pm
" The petitioners rely heavily on a 1990 California Supreme Court decision, Raven v. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 1:40 pm
[Disclosure: Dill and I were both expert witnesses on behalf of Jennings and the other plaintiffs in the Jennings v. [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 9:13 am by Sarah Libowsky, Krista Oehlke
The United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is but one example. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 1:34 am by stevemehta
SOMA Environmental Engineering Inc., A123893, the 1st District held that an Alameda County judge erred by reducing a negligence award from $150,000 in damages — including more than $44,500 for past medical expenses — to about $18,000. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 1:25 pm by Greg Herman-Giddens
The limitation on deferrals under Section 457(e)(15) concerning deferred compensation plans of state and local governments and tax-exempt organizations remains unchanged at $16,500. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 8:20 pm
The case shows up in a database used by lawyers, but as Confidential v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 6:59 am by rachel@masslomap.org
STANDARD DEDUCTION v ITEMIZED DEDUCTION Can we still itemize and can still deduct . . . ? [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 7:46 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Background On AB 5 AB 5, which took effect on January 1, 2020, codified the ABC Test for employee status adopted in the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2024, 9:05 pm by Thomas A. Berry
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
7 Sep 2020, 10:04 am by Paul Rosenzweig, Vishnu Kannan
More pointedly, it provides (in §606(c)) that: Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of… [read post]