Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 5361 - 5380
of 7,211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
[9] ORC 2329.03 [10] IRC § 6323(b)(8); See Also, North Carolina Joint Underwriting Assn. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 5:23 pm
” Despite the decision in Perilya v Nash [2015] NSWSC 706 there was a concern that the courts might interpret the model provision more narrowly outside of NSW. [read post]
16 Feb 2021, 2:51 pm
See Anunciato et al. v Biden et al. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 1:39 pm
Reasons for judgement were released today (Tong v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 10:23 am
Walkowiak v. [read post]
21 May 2009, 7:27 am
So the court stated in Zomba Enters. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 11:46 am
State Farm). [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 6:49 am
United States and Barber v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 4:54 pm
Circuit, Schroer v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 8:12 am
They also paid future mortgage payments to the new mortgage holder. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 5:24 pm
State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991). [read post]
22 May 2012, 8:27 am
They justified this by saying that a license was a "privilege", not a "right" — and since the license holder had no rights, the state could do what it wanted. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 4:53 am
” McNaughton v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 6:22 pm
Texas put the new law into use in three state elections, doing so initially soon after the Supreme Court in its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 5:54 am
The question from the Philips case (which the INTA submission refers to, but doesn't replicate, in its submission) is:Does Article 6(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 (the old Customs Regulation) constitute a uniform rule of Community law which must be taken into account by the court of the Member State which, in accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, has been approached by the holder of an intellectual-property right, and does that rule… [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 1:12 pm
They justified this by saying that a license was a "privilege", not a "right" — and since the license holder had no rights, the state could do what it wanted. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 4:59 pm
Holder). [read post]
5 May 2010, 11:40 am
Holder. [read post]
26 Dec 2015, 8:05 am
The BLM itself in 1978 issued an explanatory pamphlet stating that the annual filings were to be made "on or before December 31" of each year. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:10 am
” TriVascular, Inc. v. [read post]
