Search for: "State v. State Board of Finance"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 1,985
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2011, 9:56 am
" State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 2:00 am
Recently, Assembly Member V. [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 6:56 pm
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am
United States and United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 5:22 am
This is the lesson of reading together the judgments of the Paris Court of appeal and of the UK Supreme Court in Dallah v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 6:55 am
” In today’s second case, United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 8:43 pm
White subjects judicial elections to the same body of case law as executive and legislative elections, it's possible that the NY Administrative Board of the Courts thought it had to set a threshold well above the invalidated Randall v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 7:07 am
. ~~~ The State: New York The Case: In re: Ferrel L. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 8:12 am
In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 7:03 am
For example, in Barbee v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 11:36 pm
The impending cuts being handed down by the state legislature are truly mind-boggling in their enormity. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:22 am
Similarly, if the firm disregards creditor interests, it will have greater difficulty attracting debt financing, and so on. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
Justice BhandariThe Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 9:26 am
Financial statements not publicly available filed with applications for industrial development financings in accordance with Chapter 49 (§ 15.2-4900 et seq.) of Title 15.2. 3. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 4:28 pm
., Appellant, v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 5:19 pm
., v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 7:05 pm
As a result, choice of law and jurisdiction rules potentially expose firms that do business nationally or internationally to oppressive law in any of the US states. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 11:15 am
While Williams v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:56 pm
INTA filed a brief in Nokia Corporation v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:26 am
Uncertainty – Legal On its face, the Governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies appears to be inconsistent with Article XVI, section 16 of the California Constitution, which established tax increment financing and requires tax increment to be paid to redevelopment agencies, and Article XIII, section 25.5 of the California Constitution (Propositions 1A and 22), which prohibits legislation requiring the transfer of tax increment to the State, any agency of… [read post]
