Search for: "State v. Levell " Results 9021 - 9040 of 28,751
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
In reaching those conclusions, the Court takes notice of the authorities under which respondents were created or otherwise originated, and it makes a practical evaluation of respondents' functions I various levels of government. [read post]
14 May 2021, 1:50 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
There are several protections for the taxpayer: the Revenue must satisfy one of the two conditions in section 29 of the TMA, the statutory time limits depend on different levels of culpability, and the Revenue’s discretion to issue an assessment can be challenged in judicial review proceedings on public law grounds. [read post]
5 Jul 2021, 5:37 am by SHG
Did the decision justify this extreme level of outrage? [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 9:07 pm by Steve Vladeck
That is to say, they can push for changes at the federal level. [read post]
US, where the US Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state attempts to criminalize and enforce illegal immigration laws on a state level. [read post]
On March 22, 2017, we blogged about the importance of the United States Supreme Court’s looming decision in Murr v. [read post]
6 Nov 2022, 9:49 am by Giles Peaker
(Recordings at that volume level were played to the court). 45DB is about the level of the click of a computer mouse. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:16 am
Court of Appeals said: in the context of defamation involving a government employee, defamation ... is not a deprivation of a liberty interest unless it occurs in the course of dismissal or refusal to rehire the individual as a government employee or during termination or alteration of some other legal right or status ... the “plus” is not only significant damage to a person’s employment opportunities, but dismissal from a government job or deprivation of some other legal right or… [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:00 am by Donnelly L. McDowell
Despite its length, the Guidance conspicuously omits any reference to last fall’s landmark decision in FTC v. [read post]