Search for: "State v. B. P." Results 481 - 500 of 6,739
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 8:55 pm
Recently, a helpful reader directed us to a new Kansas Appellate decision assuaging Scalia's fears by upholding a state law criminalizing bestiality in State v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 1:06 pm
  The dollar limitation under Section 414(v)(2)(B)(ii) for catch-up contributions to an applicable employer plan described in Section 401(k)(11) or Section 408(p) for individuals aged 50 or over remains unchanged at $3,000.The annual compensation limitation under Section 401(a)(17) for eligible participants in certain governmental plans that, under the plan as in effect on July 1, 1993, allowed cost of living adjustments to the compensation limitation under the… [read post]
16 Sep 2006, 4:39 pm
Civil No. 05-42-B-W UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE 421 F. [read post]
31 May 2007, 6:16 am
The class action complaint included causes of action for a class action claim under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3) “for violation of state wage and hour laws ‘in each state in which each [p]laintiff worked’ (Count 4),” as well as “a class action claim under [FRCP Rule 23(b)(1)] for violation of state wage and hour laws ‘of the various states in which [p]laintiffs worked’… [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 3:04 pm by Bexis
Echeverria, 744 P.2d 960, 965 (Okla. 1987); see also State ex rel. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 6:06 am
Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169, 233 P.3d 879 (Washington Supreme Court 2010)).State v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 5:42 pm
Since I'm still feeling a bit under the weather, I'm happy to direct you to other posts around the web on the case to fill the void in my coverage:Court allows taxing bond interest, attack on child pornMore on United States v. [read post]