Search for: "Sales v. State"
Results 8921 - 8940
of 21,158
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am
First sale is a similar issue. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:16 am
Additionally, since the burden for collection shifts from the federal government to individual businesses, some of which are not currently collecting taxes (those which sell exempt goods, businesses in states where there are no sales taxes and businesses currently not subject to taxes on providing services), there’s a concern about the added burden that would place on those businesses, specifically small businesses. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 5:20 am
Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 6:21 pm
These include digital forensic preservation and investigation, notification of a broad range of third parties and other constituencies,[1] fulfillment of state and federal compliance obligations, potential litigation, engagement with law enforcement, the provision of credit monitoring, crisis management, a communications plan – and the list goes on. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 8:13 am
The decision is Pinti v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 7:26 am
Facts: This case (United States of America v. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 6:30 pm
K-V Pharm. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 12:36 pm
Supreme Court’s June decision in EEOC v. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 4:52 am
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 5:42 pm
Employees’ Retirement System of Government of the V.I. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:45 am
Ericsson:Contrary to Marvell’s contention, Harris Corp. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:27 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:14 am
Johnson v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:09 am
[could potentially complicate] matters for President Vladimir V. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:09 am
[could potentially complicate] matters for President Vladimir V. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 10:46 pm
The Superior Court denied this argument citing the Plain Smell doctrine “Plain smell” standard adopted in State of Arizona v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 1:56 pm
From Munn v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 8:48 am
As stated by the court in Testa v Cincinnati, “The focus in those cases was not on the revenue realized as a result of the challenged uses, but on the incidental character of the private use in relation to the public purpose. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 7:04 am
Second, the injunction only prohibited sales to actual customer of the former employer and did not include prospective customers or those that were past customers. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 6:49 am
Polkowski, 854 So.2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,” and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and sale of foreign property); Pawlik v. [read post]
