Search for: "Does 1-80" Results 3401 - 3420 of 6,387
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm by Kevin Kaufman
Figure 1 Top Effective Marginal Tax Rates in 2019 and Their Composition Table 1. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 5:26 pm by Ivy Grey
Any homeowner now owing 80 percent to 105 percent of the home’s value qualifies. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 5:49 pm
Louis, MO: Saunders. 80: 1571. [read post]
14 May 2007, 3:42 pm
. *** The Commercial Division 67 of the Boston Printing Pressmen Local 3 (1-CD-1060; 349 NLRB No. 80) Braintree, MA April 23, 2007. [read post]
1 Jan 2017, 8:58 pm by David Cheifetz
Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (CSC), [1994] 2 R.C.S. 9, p. 23 et 24. [read post]
16 May 2023, 11:43 am by Patricia Hughes
This does not mean there cannot be other restrictions on voting, but the government must justify them under section 1: see, for example, Fitzgerald v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 9:07 am by MBettman
Smith, 80 Ohio St. 3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997) (Upholding the constitutionality of direct appeal of capital cases from the trial court to the Supreme Court of Ohio. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 7:26 am
Jacob LJ considered (at [79]) that this was “not really an apt matter for patent law”: [80] “Does it really matter if Schütz has a monopoly in replacing bottles for its cages? [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 5:26 pm by Michael Abramowicz
For example, suppose 45% of voters have the preference ordering (1) Left (2) Center (3) Right, 40% have the preference ordering (1) Right (2) Center (3) Left, and 15% have Center as their first choice. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 11:01 pm by Lonnie Roach
Insurance policies will describe what other income counts as an offset and what does not. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 2:06 pm by Paul A. Prados
Early this afternoon the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the individual mandate of the PPACA unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision.The case, Florida v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 2:11 am by Peter Mahler
” The court amplified its ruling as follows: Although plaintiff is not entitled to the “fair value” of the stock under Business Corporation Law § 1118 (b) because he does not own 20% of the outstanding shares and there is no evidence that defendant has engaged in “illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions” toward plaintiff (§ 1104-a [a] [1]), it does not follow, as defendant suggests, that plaintiff is entitled only to book value. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:44 am by Carole Silver
The Sample Does Not Represent the Population of Interest         Limitations in the available data and some of Simkovic’s analytic choices result in his analysis of a sample that does not represent the population he wishes to study. [read post]