Search for: "R. B." Results 4221 - 4240 of 55,751
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2009, 12:39 pm by Kenneth Vercammen NJ Law Blog
Subscribed and sworn before me this _____________________ day of ____________________________, ______. __________________________________________________________________ Official Title (Notarized) THIS FORM MAYBE REPRODUCED A TT AC H C H EC K F O R B A LA N CE D U E H ER E STATE OFNEWJERSEY Inheritance Tax Return RESIDENTDECEDENT (Instructions on reverse side) IT-R(10-09) (67) For Division Use Only Transfer Inheritance Tax POBox 249 Trenton, NJ 08695-0249… [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 5:43 pm by INFORRM
The extra hurdle of certification is not discriminatory against criminal litigants: R v Dunn [2011] 1 WLR 958. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 3:04 am by J
R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State (No.2) [2011] EWCA Civ 639 is one that we may have missed when it first came out (or we decided not to do it – we can’t quite remember now), but, given that I have some free time this morning, I thought I’d do a short note on it. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 8:07 am
It appears that, on Monday (7.12.09), the High Court handed down judgment in R (Garbet) v Circle 33 Housing CO/891/2009, dealing with just such a matter. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 10:00 pm by Fred Abrams
My November 1, 2009 article highlighted the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of real estate developer Michael R. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 3:00 am
R Sigrid van Roode, from th Netherlands writes in with the following question:"Our company will start improving our consultancy using the input of your book True Professionalism. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 10:17 am by Peter Briccetti
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) submitted S.Res. 324, which was promptly “considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. [read post]
13 Nov 2006, 12:28 pm by Christopher S. Jones
Paul Travelers securities class action, with Judge John R. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As the Druckexemplar did in fact include page 6, and this was the legally binding text, the objections raised by the respondent-opponent under A 100(b) and A 123(3), based solely on the missing page 6, the appellant proprietor’s requests for correction under R 140 or amendment, as well as the ensuing discussion during the OPs before the Board concerning A 123(3)) and the Board’s finding above were from a substantive point of view legally unfounded (not having considered… [read post]