Search for: "Kindle v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2014, 8:49 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 11:52 am
In light of the decision in Loving et al v Commissioner where the court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service did not have the authority to regulate tax preparers, the IRS has issued the following statement: As of Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has enjoined the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the regulatory requirements for registered tax return preparers. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 8:19 am
Those cases include Hollingsworth v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 1:02 pm
Send to Kindle [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 6:41 am
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers tells the “long-shot” story of United States v. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 12:08 pm
State v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
We are very pleased to announce Lawfare‘s first e-book, Lawfare on the National Defense Authorization Acts, which is now available in Kindle format on Amazon for $4.99. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:15 pm
In 1988, the state botched D’Ambrosio’s trial by violating Brady v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:19 am
Those cases include Hollingsworth v. [read post]
12 Jan 2008, 11:53 am
" The decisions that kindled the paper wars will be familiar to federal litigators: Celotex Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 8:59 am
751 (1998), and United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 8:36 am
RT: When I buy a Kindle book am I an owner of a copy? [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 5:53 pm
Earlier today, in Anam et. al. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 3:20 am
Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (N.Y. 1982); see Welsh v. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 3:18 am
” Pure Air and Water Inc. of Chemong County v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:26 pm
(Recall the hubbub over Amazon's zapping of books from Kindle). [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 1:23 pm
As the Statesman-Journal reports, a 2015 Oregon Appeals Court ruling (State v Rabanales-Ramos – 273 Or App 228 (2015)) took a narrow view of the Oregon distracted driving law (ORS 811.507), essentially creating a loophole for all forms of distracted driving other than talking on the phone or texting. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 1:23 pm
As the Statesman-Journal reports, a 2015 Oregon Appeals Court ruling (State v Rabanales-Ramos – 273 Or App 228 (2015)) took a narrow view of the Oregon distracted driving law (ORS 811.507), essentially creating a loophole for all forms of distracted driving other than talking on the phone or texting. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 4:00 am
Q. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 10:01 am
’“ (People v. [read post]
