Search for: "State v. N. K. B." Results 501 - 520 of 747
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2022, 4:46 pm by INFORRM
Mr Palmer argues comments made by Mr McGowan in 2020, which included calling him an “enemy” of the state, damaged his reputation. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 8:15 pm by Stephen Bilkis
A private detective has only the right of a private person with respect to arrest, Dohery v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 10:39 am
Now for something serious and not so serious at times - the ABCs of HST: A is for Almost Everything - HST covers almost everything; B is for Bookkeeping - Registrants need to keep detailed records and maintain books are records that can be audited by the Canada Revenue Agency Auditors; C is for Canada Revenue Agency - The CRA enforces the HST (both the GST and PVAT portions); D is for Documentary Requirements - A top 10 audit issue is that registrations do not maintain adequate… [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Securities and Exchange Regulation S-K[2] can support a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, even absent an otherwise misleading statement.[3] The plaintiffs alleged that Macquarie had issued material misstatements and omissions concerning the potential impact of new international fuel regulations on the company’s fuel storage business, in violation of both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 3:22 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Under Partnership Law 69, they can either (a) do nothing, in which case the partnership must be wound up or (b) elect to continue the business, either by themselves or jointly with others. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 1:18 pm
This segment summarizes state-of-the art knowledge of the pros and cons (advantages and limitations) of using ionizing radiation to enhance the quality of fresh iceberg lettuce and spinach. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 5:03 am by jonathanturley
Mississippi Delta Comm’n on Mental Health, No. 4:11CV044, 2012 WL 5304755, at *9–10 (N.D. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by John Elwood
” With that K[alamazo]O, Christeson v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:34 am by Joseph C. McDaniel
The reason you're limited to the State of Arizona exemptions (and a couple of others) is that Arizona is what's called an "opt-out" state, because it did. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 11:54 am by Bexis
  Relying on the rightly-maligned “reasonably calculated” language in current Rule 26(b)(1), the magistrate’s opinion in McLane v. [read post]