Search for: "State v. K. L. F." Results 41 - 60 of 927
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2023, 3:00 am by Chip Merlin
K & K Int’l, 73 Haw. 509, 520, 836 P.2d 1057, 1063–64 (1992). [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm by admin
 Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 563 F. 3d 171, 178 (6th Cir 2009); Westberry v. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 9:07 am by Bill Marler
State laboratories can send STEC cultures to the CDC to determine the serotype. [read post]
9 May 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
There is reason to believe the SEC’s new universal proxy Rule 14a-19 will result in more stockholder nominees being elected to the boards of public companies. [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Attorney General William Barr stated in the Wall Street Journal that the belief that ESG factors are material to profitability “appears to rest more on hope than fact. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Issuers must also disclose their insider trading policies in their annual reports on Form 10-K. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
As a point of context, it’s worth noting that many states already require disclosure or much more draconian regulation of litigation funders backing state court cases—for instance, some states require funds and funders to register, and some even require funding agreements to be disclosed with the state. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 3:30 am by Kevin Kaufman
Arizona (f, g, w) 2.50% > $0 2.50% > $0 $13,850 $27,700 n.a. n.a. $100 credit Arkansas 2.00% > $0 2.00% > $0 $2,270 $4,540 $29 credit $58 credit $29 credit (d, h, i, o, oo) 4.00% > $4,300 4.00% > $4,300             4.90% > $8,500 4.90% > $8,500           California 1.00% > $0 1.00% > $0 $5,202 $10,404 $140 credit $280 credit $433 credit (a, i, k, l, m, n, o, rr) 2.00% > $10,099 2.00%… [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
" Notwithstanding this position, the parties acknowledge that the three counties at issue in petitioner's modified request are served by only two of respondent's 11 troops — Troop F and Troop K. [read post]