Search for: "Prior v. Department of Revenue"
Results 621 - 640
of 843
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
Fourth Department States That Federal Poverty Income Guidelines Do Not Apply Where Income Is Imputed in Excess of Guidelines Amount In Niagra County Department of Social Services ex rel Hueber v Hueber, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5433691 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) the Support Magistrate imputed income to Respondent based on the minimum wage for a period of over three years and ordered that he pay child support arrears for that period of $1,870.68. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
Fourth Department States That Federal Poverty Income Guidelines Do Not Apply Where Income Is Imputed in Excess of Guidelines Amount In Niagra County Department of Social Services ex rel Hueber v Hueber, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5433691 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) the Support Magistrate imputed income to Respondent based on the minimum wage for a period of over three years and ordered that he pay child support arrears for that period of $1,870.68. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 1:03 pm
Day v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:38 pm
” Houston In a case we referenced in a prior post, a Texas Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgement in City of Houston v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 8:26 am
If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Wyoming Department of Revenue v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm
GRIMSLEY, Appellant, v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 5:44 pm
” He had taken a job as a consultant to a law firm, during his leave of absence.Also during his leave of absence, the employee filed a complaint with the Labor Department alleging that the company violated Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley by retaliating against him after he alerted the SEC and the audit committee to concerns about GAAP violations with respect to revenue recognition and joint venture accounting practices. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 12:32 pm
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 3:11 pm
TweetOn September 13, 2011, the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued an opinion in Menendez v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 11:17 am
The revenue records of the State revealed that the disputed property stood in the name of the defendants. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 3:11 pm
Tweet Image via Wikipedia On September 13, 2011, the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued an opinion in Menendez v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
http://j.st/c4h Kolev v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
Walsh, et al.; SEC v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 12:08 pm
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 12:08 pm
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 12:07 pm
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 12:07 pm
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 8:40 am
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 12:14 pm
In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:55 am
It specifically prohibits any municipality from selling a long-term bond to fund pension obligations or other post-employment benefits without prior approval by the state auditor general and director of the state department of revenue. [read post]
