Search for: "S. W. v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 14,801
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2024, 7:41 am
Mular v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
” The Supreme Court’s opportunity came with the 2023 decision in Nealy v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:15 am
In keeping with the FCC’s forbearance from requiring BIAS providers to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund, Footnote 1,476 provides, “we maintain the status quo with respect to states’ ability to impose state-level contribution obligations on the provision of BIAS for state universal service programs. [read post]
13 May 2024, 1:59 pm
Judge Donald W. [read post]
13 May 2024, 8:39 am
Those are treated as compensation and can yield a W-2 with millions of dollars of income on it. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). [read post]
13 May 2024, 12:57 am
On Thursday 16 May 2024 there will be an injunction application in the privacy case of Department for Education v Hercules KB-2024-000389 Reserved judgements Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot, heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others, heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini… [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm
” In an example, the OCC notes that to the extent that state laws purport to impose requirements such as attestation or reporting on national banks or FSAs, these laws “may be inconsistent with the OCC’s exclusive visitorial authority under federal law. [read post]
12 May 2024, 6:55 am
In Tuskia v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 2:41 pm
S. 555 (1983), and United States v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 12:15 pm
In Naranjo v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am
In Raytheon Co. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 11:46 am
” Case No. 01001976380 | The People of the State of California v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:42 am
Bell v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
From today's Fourth Circuit opinion in Doe v. [read post]
