Search for: "Hills v. Department of Revenue" Results 61 - 80 of 119
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2015, 10:52 am by Maureen Johnston
Hill – which interpreted the Endangered Species Act prior to Congress’s addition of the “reasonable and prudent alternative” framework – still requires federal agencies to protect species and their habitat “whatever the cost. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The McGraw-Hill Case Which brings us to last week’s decision by the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, First Department, in Retirement Plan for General Employees v. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 10:03 am by Lyle Denniston
  The three-judge panel’s decision in Sissel v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 12:59 pm by Robichaud
It is only in the most serious and clearest of cases that these extensive reviews make feasible sense—as a matter of practicality and as a matter of efficient expenditure of taxpayer revenues. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 12:59 pm by Robichaud
It is only in the most serious and clearest of cases that these extensive reviews make feasible sense—as a matter of practicality and as a matter of efficient expenditure of taxpayer revenues. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 10:07 am by WSLL
Case Name: MERIT ENERGY COMPANY v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm by John Dean
Professor Hill reported that a law cannot be changed, nor made inoperative, by withholding an appropriation that is needed for it to operate, so refusing to fund a program, agency, or department is unconstitutional. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 12:14 am by Mischa Popoff
” Book sits in a chair that was once occupied by none other than Miles V. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 10:01 am by Stephanie Woods, Associate, Olswang LLP
Between 1980 and 1985, Lord Carnwath was Junior Counsel to the Inland Revenue. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 8:06 am by Mark J. Rose, Esq.
Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, John V. [read post]
21 May 2012, 1:18 am by Sam Murrant
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to “main” care giver not discriminatory (under art.14 ECHR) to father who was caring for the child 3 days per week. [read post]