Search for: "State v. Save" Results 6101 - 6120 of 11,764
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm by Shelby Everest
By incorporating such a clause, it can save the seller embarrassment that, in some circles, comes with exposing a weak financial position. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 10:46 am
By incorporating such a clause, it can save the seller embarrassment that, in some circles, comes with exposing a weak financial position. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:05 am by Jarod Bona
I will save a detailed discussion of this doctrine for future blog posts, but the short story is that federalism concerns have led the courts to exempt conduct by the state as a sovereign from antitrust scrutiny. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:52 am by Marty Lederman
  But employers are legally entitled to decline to offer such an employee plan at all--and if they do so, it is likely that the direct effect would be a cost savings to the employer, even after accounting for a tax assessment that would be imposed on large employers such as Hobby Lobby, Martel, and Conestoga Wood. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 12:43 pm by Dennis Crouch
By Dennis Crouch Butamax v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 6:35 am
Central planning, not the welfare state, is what was incompatible with individual liberty. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 6:28 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
The Petitioner in the case had claimed that a saving clause in the amendment that stated prior regulations of the Town survived the amendment meant that the ZBA condition on height also survived, In rejecting that argument the Court noted that a condition fixed by a zoning board is not a Town regulation. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:47 am
On the other hand, there are limits to this principle; here’s an excerpt from State v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 6:02 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
The bottom of the form reports local and state tax information. [read post]