Search for: "Does 1-39"
Results 4341 - 4360
of 5,143
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2017, 9:55 am
But I do hope the court does not rest on this to abdicate its responsibili [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:38 am
Does its decision create a conflict that could cause the Supreme Court to weigh in? [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:46 pm
One of the major components of this legislation is the reinstatement of the Federal R&D Credit retroactively to January 1, 2010. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 6:46 pm
By that year, 38 of the 39 detainees who are known to have been subjected to the CIA’s EITs had already been subjected to them. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:38 am
Does its decision create a conflict that could cause the Supreme Court to weigh in? [read post]
14 May 2015, 3:31 pm
., 39 F. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:46 pm
One of the major components of this legislation is the reinstatement of the Federal R&D Credit retroactively to January 1, 2010. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 3:41 pm
In holding that these are proper discovery questions Madam Justice Arnold Bailey applied and summarize the law as follows: [39] With respect to question (a) and the demand for cellular phone records, Rule 27(20) states that "a person to be examined for discovery… shall produce for inspection on the examination all documents in his or her possession or control not privileged, relating to the matters in question in the action". [40] Liability is at issue and… [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 8:58 am
., unique identifiers – Section 2(39)—must be capable of being “strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the individual. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 10:09 pm
What does she have to hide? [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
Excerpt: pp 1-14 [Footnotes omitted. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 7:19 am
Rev. 1181 (2021) (arguing for an extension of MQD-like review aimed at minor questions).Critique #1: The MQD fiction The point can be put several different ways: “Congress speaks clearly when addressing major questions”; “we presume that Congress does not intend to delegate major questions to federal agencies in obscure grants”; “we expect Congress to speak clearly when addressing major questions”. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am
In addition to overturning the physical presence substantial nexus standard applicable to use tax collection requirements articulated by the court in Quill[1] and Bellas Hess[2], the Court’s far reaching opinion in Wayfair creates an undefined sufficiency test for determining when a taxpayer has substantial nexus with a state for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 5:19 pm
Ed. 2d 39 (1992)). [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 9:14 am
(See para 39 page 613).31. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 10:20 pm
Make note, a conviction DOES NOT require intent! [read post]
21 Oct 2024, 11:19 am
”5 1. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 6:22 pm
RR-3):1–95. [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 7:25 am
R.S. 47:287.95(F)(1). [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 4:05 pm
No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. [read post]
