Search for: "S. W. v. State"
Results 6441 - 6460
of 14,906
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Dec 2017, 12:00 am
I gather the key case is Arizona v. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 11:35 am
Cir. 2001), in which the CAFC stated that “a bid award may be set aside if either: (1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure” and “[w]hen a challenge is brought on the second ground, the disappointed bidder must show “a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:10 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:48 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:56 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:11 am
Supreme Court of the United States Decided: May 31, 2011 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-6.pdf In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Global-Tech v. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 3:30 am
”The court soon after ruled against the Claimant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Denial of Due Process of Law, and Failure to State a Cause of Action, a pleading that had been pending for one year. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 10:09 am
In SONY v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 4:47 am
And third, as Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner have pointed out, the Supreme Court did not apply a clear statement in United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:31 am
” In the words of the court, “[w]hen both the jobs, and their associated pension plans, involve New York public employment, the state's interests in, and control over, their financial consequences are stronger than when only the second job involves New York public employment. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 4:42 am
[W]hat did she expect? [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 10:47 am
Express Oil Change, L.L.C v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 10:23 am
In TransUnion LLC v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 6:30 am
Div. 1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 12:55 pm
Homeland Housewares v. [read post]
3 May 2011, 5:45 am
Daniel W. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 11:50 am
In Legacy Church v. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
Trying to nullify state capture. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:28 am
Ass’n v. [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 5:26 am
Interco Inc., 719 F.2d 23, 32 (2d Cir.1983) and citing Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. [read post]
