Search for: "In the Interest of: R.C." Results 161 - 180 of 394
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2024, 4:00 am by Sherica Celine
IRS provides guidance on the registration requirements for the clean fuel production credit determined under R.C. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 8:02 am by MBettman
While Hoyle and the employers filed separate briefs, and have antagonistic positions in the event of trial on the merits, their interests are aligned for the purposes of this appeal. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:39 am by MBettman
I’ve long been interested in this case because of the involvement of the University of Cincinnati College of Law’s Ohio Innocence Project. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 3:44 am by Sandra C. Fava
   In a recent New Jersey unpublished Appellate Division case, R.C. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 9:35 am by MBettman
” Kuhn’s second argument addresses Cottle’s suggestion that she has a dower interest in the property under R.C. 2103.02. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 1:51 pm
Any consumer, as defined in R.C. 5741.01, can resolve its Ohio use tax liability by paying all consumer use tax owed on and after January 1, 2009 during the program. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 4:56 am by MBettman
Accordingly, the First District found that R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) does not violate either state or federal equal protection rights, since Ohio has a legitimate interest in stopping the spread of HIV, and that the disclosure requirement of R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) is rationally related to this goal. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 11:13 am by Shawn R. Dominy, Attorney at Law
The Court of Appeals found that the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests is outweighed by the promotion of the government’s legitimate interest in public safety. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 8:44 am by MBettman
The administrator’s application in support of the settlement of these cases raised some very interesting legal issues in support of the settlement. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:14 am by MBettman
Merit Decision The issue in this case was whether or not the punitive damages cap codified in R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(a) applied to the verdict. [read post]