Search for: "State v. Flowers"
Results 141 - 160
of 796
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2015, 12:57 pm
Hearts, candy, flowers, and dinner dates are all symbols and activities of this special day. [read post]
17 Mar 2019, 12:47 pm
In Flowers v. [read post]
30 Jun 2007, 8:42 am
State v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 6:58 am
Flowers from the garden? [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 3:25 pm
From United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 9:50 am
The justices sent the case back for the state courts to take another look in light of their 2016 decision in Foster v. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.). [read post]
23 Nov 2021, 11:22 am
State v. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 5:03 am
Flowers v. [read post]
11 Jan 2022, 1:55 am
Flowers are now taxed at a rate of $10.08 per dry-weight ounce; leaves are taxed at a rate of $3.00 per dry-weight ounce; and fresh cannabis plants are taxed at $1.41 per ounce.[10] Prior to the New Year, flowers were taxed at a rate of $9.65 per dry-weight ounce; leaves at $2.87 per dry-weight ounce; and fresh cannabis plants at $1.35 per ounce.[11] Colorado On June 23, 2021, Governor Jared Polis (D) signed H.B. 1311,[12] adopting the Finnegan Rule for determining which affiliated… [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 10:07 am
The Court’s ruling in United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 6:00 am
See Whitlock v. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 6:10 am
In a recent court case captioned Packer ex rel 1-800-Flowers.com v. [read post]
4 Oct 2024, 12:30 pm
Black pastor in Childersburg, Ala. is watering his (white) neighbors' flowers while they're out of town. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 2:50 am
Harris and United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2016, 9:58 am
"In Flowers v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 11:59 am
The style of the case is, Rosa Garcia and Augustin Garcia v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2012, 1:27 pm
Dr F notes that, ironically, "[v]oluntary guidelines generally do not command attention. [read post]
