Search for: "State v. L. B."
Results 3261 - 3280
of 6,572
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2014, 5:21 pm
United States Department Of Homeland Security. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 1:11 pm
L. 91 (2005)Wants to talk about dilution. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 1:38 pm
After taking the applicable rounding rules into account, the amounts for 2015 are as follows:The adjusted gross income limitation under Section 25B(b)(1)(A) for determining the retirement savings contribution credit for married taxpayers filing a joint return is increased from $36,000 to $36,500; the limitation under Section 25B(b)(1)(B) is increased from $39,000 to $39,500; and the limitation under Sections 25B(b)(1)(C) and 25B(b)(1)(D) is… [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 6:42 am
Here are the materials in Farmer v. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 5:08 am
Civ-14-702-L, slip op. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 10:05 am
§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(v-vii). [6] 25 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 10:05 am
§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(v-vii). [6] 25 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 5:03 am
(b) If neither of those alternatives is correct, how should the provision then be interpreted? [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 4:00 am
Wilson Logan (2014 QCCS 4765), l’Honorable juge Catherine La Rosa souligne que cette exception ne peut trouver application que si les tribunaux québécois ont véritablement juridiction pour entendre les procédures déposées devant eux…. _________________________ *Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 11:49 pm
V. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 5:11 am
We therefore conclude that this argument lacks merit.Hallquist v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 5:44 am
Rogers v. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 9:45 am
Cf. 4thcircuit’s AOL v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 11:39 am
Its legislative authority is divided between a Bundesrat, which represents the German states (Länder) with relatively constrained authority. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 7:40 am
State ex rel.Jones v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 3:49 pm
Ct. 707, L. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
”Id. at 1141-42 (various citations omitted).Courts in other states following this general approach are: Haygood v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 11:49 am
In reaching this conclusion, the Hearing Officer was guided by the CJEU’s decision in Case C-235/05 L’Oréal SA v OHIM (FLEXI AIR), which addressed the risk that consumers would believe that the slight difference between the signs reflected a variation in the nature of the products or stemmed from marketing considerations rather than assuming that the difference denoted goods from different traders. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 9:07 am
As we recently discussed, in Liu, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit followed Morrison v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 3:12 am
Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. [read post]
