Search for: "Does 1-237"
Results 261 - 280
of 598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2017, 4:58 am
A principal argument of the taxpayers was that the IRS’ suit to collect taxes was commenced 10 years and 237 days after the assessment date (the date of the Tax Court stipulated decision). [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 1:57 pm
Extension of Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Act No. 206 (HB 237) , enacted June 14, 2017. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
Becker, 237 F.3d 1223 (10th 2001) (ruling that Daubert does not “overrid[e] the general requirement of a timely objection to the evidence” and that no sua sponte Daubert analysis is required); Tharp v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 6:56 pm
during the trial if the Court does permit it. [read post]
11 May 2017, 11:16 am
Wis. 1991); Doe v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 6:41 am
(Preib's Rule 24 Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 237 at ¶ 1.) [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:24 am
Respondent does not argue otherwise.People v. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 1:43 pm
” The court below upheld that decision, on the theory that the First Amendment does not protect “unprofessional speech” such as speech that violates the Nursing Code of Ethics. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 4:10 am
We hold that it does not. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 8:45 am
Dewalt, 237 N.C. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 8:45 am
Dewalt, 237 N.C. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 2:25 pm
Code § 1028(a)(1), and false attestation in an immigration matter in violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 3:06 am
However, now that the drug has become legal for medicinal purposes in the Sunshine State, some lawmakers say this statute does not go far enough. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 2:14 pm
Fusting (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 404, 411; but see People v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 5:48 pm
See id. at 237-39. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 10:13 pm
The term 120 does not include the: 121 1. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 10:13 pm
The term 120 does not include the: 121 1. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:01 am
Dunn 16-602 Issues: (1) Whether, to satisfy his Glossip v. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 7:19 am
§ 1369(b)(1)(F), the portion of the Clean Water Act’s judicial review provision that requires that agency actions “in issuing or denying any permit” under Section 1342 be reviewed by the court of appeals, to decide petitions to review the waters-of-the-United-States rule, even though the rule does not “issu[e] or den[y] any permit” but instead defines the waters that fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:17 am
, 237 S.W.3d 379, 385 (Tex. [read post]
