Search for: "Line v. People"
Results 9901 - 9920
of 13,535
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2011, 12:30 pm
I wrote about that argument in my article The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine (July 29, 2003), where I explained that: In Dodge v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 12:09 pm
See United States v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 10:57 am
In fact, cases like the old It’s in the Cards v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 2:00 am
Patent No. 6,933,849 entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRACKING OBJECTS AND PEOPLE and owned by Automated Tracking Solutions. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 2:00 am
Patent No. 6,933,849 entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRACKING OBJECTS AND PEOPLE and owned by Automated Tracking Solutions. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 11:50 pm
See United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 2:04 pm
By Mark Hays, Campaign Coordinator for Public Citizen’s Democracy is for People Campaign, which is building public support for a constitutional amendment that would address the impact of Citizens United v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:01 pm
Daum v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 10:34 am
Goldstone: People are feeling disassociated from the political system. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 9:19 am
v=1SplD86dmAM. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 4:55 am
Neil v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:42 am
v=43f2bBjGi_8 Now, that’s quite a quirky repertory, and it stands in favorable comparison to Tom’s: the periodic table, plagiarism, pollution, the new math, the Vatican II conference, and of course the silent letter ‘e’. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:01 am
Some states have placed a line on their income tax returns inviting people to report use taxes on out-of-state purchases, but what little evidence exists of the success of this approach doesn’t suggest it is the answer.This is not my first commentary on use tax collection in an internet age. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 9:59 pm
Member of group of people who blindly follow one another. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 1:16 pm
Co. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:50 am
With this established, I think it is imperative that the amendment be passed and that judicial pay be cut in line with existing reductions to public sector pay. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:32 am
Although it was held in Byrne v Minister for Finance that article 35.5 does not prevent the imposition of a generally applicable income tax on judicial salaries, the previous Government concluded, in 2009, that it precluded the imposition on judges not only of the public sector pay cuts, but also, the pension levy. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
A merely philanthropic purpose, or purpose for the benefit of a private class, would lack this element of public benefit and would therefore not qualify as charitable (Oppenheim v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 1:40 pm
However, as the Supreme Court recently ruled (PDF) in Brown v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 12:15 pm
See Time, Inc. v. [read post]
