Search for: "Fudge v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 198
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2014, 8:46 am
Verrilli begins ponderously and the Chief Justice scampers right in to trip him up:GENERAL VERRILLI: The touchstone for resolving this case is the principle Justice Jackson articulated in Prince v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 9:13 am
Briggs repaid them the amounts stated in the discovery response. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 8:31 am
Thus, for example, at the time of the creation of the RRS and the RNWF, "A deputy finance minister, Dmitry V. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 4:31 pm
No fudge fromFloyd, rules CATwo years ago during the Olympics, the AmeriKat sat on her sofa with the door ajar, letting the cool summer breeze tickle her paws. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 8:30 pm
Here again, the Court relied on a prior FCA case, U.S. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 9:06 pm
The cases are EPA v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 11:37 am
Scott v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 10:37 am
Scott v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 5:46 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 9:56 pm
In Willms v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 6:00 am
Earle, 38 U.S. 519 (1839) and Paul v. [read post]
5 May 2013, 7:17 am
NYT v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 1:48 pm
Even if a credible case takes a little (or perhaps a lot of) exaggeration and fudging with the facts. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 5:33 am
Ivie v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 2:51 am
But then the fudge then went further. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 2:46 pm
On the other hand, I can say with certainty that the first decision of the Court of International Trade for 2013 is: [drum roll please] United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 11:09 am
Sweetman v. [read post]
