Search for: "Gross v. State"
Results 3021 - 3040
of 4,142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2023, 7:58 am
A recent federal Tax Court case, Moore v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 8:13 am
The San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services Initiative passed with a 61.34% vote. [read post]
17 Sep 2012, 4:42 am
Heeb's stated results support his overarching conclusion, namely that skill predominates over chance in poker. [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 10:44 am
Supreme Court Case, Brulotte v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 4:57 am
(See Kean v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:21 am
The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 11:20 am
* She also argued, based on United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 9:46 pm
P’ship v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm
In 1982, the NFLPA went on strike over the percentage of the gross revenue the NFL garnered. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 5:11 pm
An appeal of this decision was upheld by the Divisional Court last year in Ontario Medical Association v. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 11:51 am
The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter. [read post]
12 Nov 2022, 6:58 pm
Valentin v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 7:51 am
-v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 6:41 am
See Henderson v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 5:06 pm
Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 1:04 pm
CITATION: Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 7:00 am
The case (South Dakota v. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 8:29 am
The AFP v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
United States, 64 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1995); Barnes v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am
Though the plan created districts roughly equal in total population, the appellants contend that it nevertheless contains “gross disparities in voters or potential voters,” and thereby runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one person, one vote” principle under Reynolds v. [read post]
