Search for: "State v. Z. A. B." Results 81 - 100 of 418
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm by NL
The Court noted the High Court decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin) that revocation of the plan by excecutive action was unlawful and also the Court of Appeal decision in R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 639 that the intended revocation of the regional plan was a material factor that planning authorities could… [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 3:30 am by Kevin Kaufman
After the tables, we document notable individual income tax changes implemented in 2022. 2023 State Income Tax Rates and Brackets State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets, as of January 1, 2023   Single Filer Married Filing Jointly Standard Deduction Personal Exemption State Rates   Brackets Rates   Brackets Single Couple Single Couple Dependent Alabama 2.00% > $0 2.00% > $0 $3,000 $8,500 $1,500 $3,000 $1,000 (a, b, c) 4.00% > $500… [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 1:06 am by INFORRM
The dissenting judges find that “the selectivity and off-handedness of the majority’s employment of the Court’s case-law manifests itself again” when the majority in Fürst-Pfeifer fails to reference cases like Z v Finland and Armonienė v Lithuania, on the disclosure of persons’ HIV status. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 8:00 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
S.57-B/A.157-B: Enacts Part Z, Sections 2-a and 3-a: To amend the social service law, in relation to the pass-through, disregard and assignment of support for persons applying for or in receipt of public assistance, and collection of a twenty-five dollar annual service fee for child support enforcement services furnished to certain persons receiving such services. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 1:16 pm by Joel E. Tasca
The CFPB noted that this guidance was issued in response to the decision in United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 4:05 pm
The point is this: if there's a statute that says that you're guilty if you do X in settings involving Y and Z, the state's required to prove each of X, Y and Z. [read post]
2 May 2023, 2:57 am by Matrix Law
Z o.o. and others v Jakubowski and others, heard 28th February 2023 Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, heard 2nd March 2023 The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilites Water Ltd No 2, heard 6th March 2023 London Borough of Merton Council v Nuffield Health Ltd, heard 7th March 2023 R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another, heard… [read post]