Search for: "Harris v. Garcia"
Results 61 - 80
of 99
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2013, 8:02 pm
Special foods and beverages which are simply substitutes for your “normal” diet generally aren’t deductible (Harris v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:39 am
For example, I didn’t cover the abominable Garcia v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 10:52 am
Garcia v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 5:23 pm
The trial in Ansari v Knowles which was due to take place last week was settled. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 3:48 am
Ct.; and Garcia v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 5:47 pm
³ I thought of their predicament when I read Garcia v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 5:39 pm
New Relists Harris v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
In the latter category we place Newman v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 8:40 am
Garcia, 17-834, involves Kansas state prosecutions of three individuals for identity fraud for using others’ Social Security numbers. [read post]
16 Feb 2020, 11:31 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 12:21 pm
Lemen (Cal. 2007); Hill v. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 7:54 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am
District Court for the Eastern District of California Garcia v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am
District Court for the Eastern District of California Garcia v. [read post]
22 May 2015, 1:28 am
Von Braun’s crown jewel was his developing the Saturn V rocket that carried men to the moon. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:28 am
” At ACS Blog, Ruben Garcia argues that “Kavanaugh’s 2014 dissenting opinion in SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 1:37 pm
ESA v. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:32 am
Remember United States v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 11:38 am
On the same day, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled the allegations against the “trophy targets” of Rupert Murdoch and other senior executives made by various claimants including Prince Harry could not be taken to trial as they added “nothing material” to the case and some amounted to a “new case”. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Garcia, No. 07-40245 A conviction for drug-related offenses is reversed and remanded for a new trial where: 1) during rebuttal closing argument, the government improperly bolstered its key witnesses, the agents who heard defendant's unrecorded confession; and 2) such bolstering constituted reversible plain error, which seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the proceedings. [read post]
