Search for: "Garcia v. Department of Revenue"
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Dec 2016, 12:36 pm
Tweets are my own. (51) @VLJeker – V. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 12:51 pm
In response, the Department began operating the insurance identification database at issue in this case.State v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 7:43 am
Garcia, 176 Ariz. 231, 236, 860 P.2d 498, 503 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1993). [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
Raich v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 6:26 pm
WILLIAM V. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 8:06 am
Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, John V. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 12:49 pm
" US v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 12:49 pm
" US v. [read post]
22 Jan 2012, 5:20 pm
THIRTY-THREE SIXTY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. 4th District.Child support -- Paternity -- Child born during intact marriage -- Department of Revenue petition to establish paternity and child support, filed against legal father and against putative biological father -- Trial court erred in granting putative biological father's motion to dismiss without considering child's best interests -- Remand for hearing to determine whether, in light of fact that… [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 10:02 am
BLANSHINE and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellees. 4th District.Civil procedure -- Service of process -- Condominiums -- Registered agent -- No merit to argument that service of process on registered agent of corporation qualified to transact business in Florida must comply with hierarchical provisions of section 48.081(1)(a)-(d)VERABELLA FALLS CONDOMINIUM, ASSOCIATION, INC. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm
The gavel came down on three petitions out of the Fifth Circuit—Pachecho-Garcia v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 9:05 pm
Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2007)] and Lindy Pen [Co. v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 2:41 pm
Oneida–Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority and Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008 US v. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 8:21 am
Because the Court cavalierly rejected the regulation-spending distinction when reviewing state grant conditions in Wisconsin Department of Industry v. [read post]
