Search for: "WORTHY v. UNITED STATES"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,121
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2013, 12:07 pm
This much needed (and much anticipated) guidance is in response to the recent United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 6:31 am
United States. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:37 am
Those are pretty serious numbers and I think worthy of further discussion. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm
Hopefully it is accurate:JAPAN ESTATE AND GIFT TAX TREATYUNITED STATES- JAPAN ESTATE, INHERITANCE, AND GIFT TAX TREATY[Signed 4/16/54]ARTICLE I(1) The taxes referred to in the present convention are: (a) In the case of the United States of America: The Federal estate and gift taxes. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am
Commentary: this case is a worthy reminder to agency staff that “best practices” dictate that what agency staff states publically and in writing, including emails, needs to be carefully considered for its CEQA implications. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 4:00 am
V. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Why the Hobby Lobby Reasoning Is Dangerous to Hobby Lobby’s Bottom Line and to the United States The Hobby Lobby reasoning is also a hazard for for-profit companies, as Chick-Fil-A has learned the hard way. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 11:11 am
Press Oct., 2013) Katrina Kimport, Queering Marriage: Challenging Family Formation in the United States (Rutgers U. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:03 am
To the surprise of no one who has been paying attention, the June 26, 2013 United States Supreme Court opinions in the cases of United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 7:47 am
In a greatly anticipated and deeply divided opinion, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that lawfully married same-sex couples are entitled to the equal protection of the laws pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and, thus, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) must fall (United States v Windsor, June 26, 2013, Kennedy, A). [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 5:56 pm
The judgment orders the United States to pay money that it would not disburse but for the court’s order. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:40 pm
United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) the Court explained states’ interests in regulating marriage with the simple declaration: “Upon [marriage] society may be said to be built. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:40 pm
Just as Lawrence v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 12:43 pm
This post focuses on the Court's invalidation of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.]In United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 11:24 am
I focus here only on the Court’s invalidation of Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2013, 7:23 am
As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 11:46 am
As Judge Sutton wrote in concurrence in Mitts: “Sometimes there is nothing wrong with letting the United States Supreme Court decide whether a decision is correct and, if not, whether it is worthy of correction. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 10:33 am
In Motiva v. [read post]
26 May 2013, 10:26 am
Certainly worthy of output from the Muttley Dastardly LLP *Psyops* unit. ) ‘THE TIDE MAY FLOOD LAW FIRMS, BUT I REMAIN UNCONVINCED THAT IT WILL ENGULF THE BAR’ Legal Cheek reports… Enjoy the sun and the bank holiday Best, as always Charon [read post]
26 May 2013, 10:26 am
Certainly worthy of output from the Muttley Dastardly LLP *Psyops* unit. ) ‘THE TIDE MAY FLOOD LAW FIRMS, BUT I REMAIN UNCONVINCED THAT IT WILL ENGULF THE BAR’ Legal Cheek reports… Enjoy the sun and the bank holiday Best, as always Charon [read post]
