Search for: "State v. Bui" Results 7341 - 7360 of 9,825
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2011, 9:36 am by David Kopel
In short, the statute says it’s a “penalty,” not a tax, and United States v. [read post]
After much litigation, hand wringing and teeth gnashing, the Supreme Court of Florida finally put the issue to rest last month when it issued its decision in Osborne v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 11:08 am by Adam Wagner
The government may simply be buying time before its human rights commission decides what to do (if anything) about that relationship. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 11:58 pm by Melina Padron
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hassan Abdi and Afrah Khalaf [2010] EWHC 3083 (Admin) The Court of Appeal decided that time spent appealing against deportation counts in assessing whether an individual has been detained for an unreasonably long period. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 1:59 pm by Ailyn Cabico
The lack of this exception in the proposed rule constitutes a material adverse business risk to state-registered fund advisers, a serious competitive detriment to our investors, and sets an unlevel playing field that threatens to limit the development and availability of private, state-registered fund management in states that adopt this rule. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 9:02 am by Eric
But the inducement rule focuses on mental state, not marketplace actions—not a good focus. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:32 am by Russ Bensing
  The defendant in State v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:14 am
This runs to 102 pages plus appendices, which seems to suggest that it's worth going out and buying shares this morning in companies that make and sell print cartridges. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 8:25 pm by Jonathan Hafetz
Obama’s order states that the PRB will not interfere with the ongoing habeas corpus litigation. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 5:26 pm by James Hamilton
The comments were submitted at the SEC’s invitation as the Commission prepares a report mandated by Section 929Y of Dodd-Frank to address whether the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. [read post]