Search for: "Rules of Evidence v. Rules"
Results 561 - 580
of 59,383
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2024, 11:20 am
Ruling in Galarza v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 7:34 am
No. 293 v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Saturday, April 6, 2024 Tags: Climate Disclosure, order, SEC, securities act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 2024 Annual Meeting Filing and Disclosure Requirements Posted by Brian V. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Saturday, April 6, 2024 Tags: Climate Disclosure, order, SEC, securities act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 2024 Annual Meeting Filing and Disclosure Requirements Posted by Brian V. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:11 am
Here is the relevant part of the main rule (Rule 13) regarding license restoration and clearance appeals: The hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following: i. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 5:55 am
ICJ Hearings in Nicaragua v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:29 pm
In State v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that "the [Board} is the administrative agency responsible for making the final determination" and the court's role "is to examine whether the [Board's] determination was supported by substantial evidence".Citing Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 191 AD3d 1129, the Appellate Division explained that there must be sufficient findings of facts in the first instance and the Appellate Division could not supply the… [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that "the [Board} is the administrative agency responsible for making the final determination" and the court's role "is to examine whether the [Board's] determination was supported by substantial evidence".Citing Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 191 AD3d 1129, the Appellate Division explained that there must be sufficient findings of facts in the first instance and the Appellate Division could not supply the… [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:57 am
The Staff also discussed the investment adviser sweep related to the SEC’s amended Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940).[2] Director Shah emphasized the timing of the sweep, occurring one year after the Rule’s compliance date, and the hope that this would prompt other investment advisers to review their policies and procedures and come within compliance of the new rule. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
Holder and Rucho v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 12:15 am
Han v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 6:56 am
The Court of Appeals reverses.The case is Nastri v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 5:27 am
State v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 4:30 am
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 3:02 am
Also, see Contract Services Employee Trust v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:36 pm
The Bench relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Brownlie v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 3:52 pm
Schmid and V. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:41 pm
People v. [read post]
