Search for: "New v. State" Results 361 - 380 of 107,392
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2011, 2:23 pm by Nissenbaum Law Group
In 2008, the legislature of New York State amended its Tax Law to require out-of-state sellers to pay state taxes if they use New York residents to solicit business from other New York residents through a web site. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 2:26 pm by Nissenbaum Law Group
In 2008, the legislature of New York State amended its Tax Law to require out-of-state sellers to pay state taxes if they use New York residents to solicit business from other New York residents through a web site. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 2:16 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
For judgment, please download: [2014] UKSC 3 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor & linked cases [2014] UKSC 3 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
19 May 2008, 3:11 am
Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, insisting that the statute is unconstitutional under the Court's precedents, New York v. [read post]
6 May 2022, 12:57 am by Immigration Prof
This week, the nation stunned by news that the Supreme Court had voted to overturn Roe v. [read post]
9 May 2007, 9:05 am
Last month, Judge Ken Karas of the Southern District of New York handed down a very interesting Fourth Amendment decision, United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 12:41 pm by Molly Runkle
This morning the Court heard oral argument in McDonnell v. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 2:45 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Court rejected the Secretary of State’s arguments based on state immunity and held that whilst there was a long-standing consensus of states in favour of immunity, there had never been sufficient international consensus for an absolute rule in customary international law. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 11:48 am by Lovechilde
Trump, it is, as the caption of the Supreme Court's decision unwittingly states: Trump v. [read post]