Search for: "Proper v. State" Results 161 - 180 of 22,830
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Apr 2024, 6:48 am by Unknown
”Section 1519 states the penalty for a person who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 7:00 am by William C. MacLeod
The Supreme Court could consider this a Major Question, subject to the analysis of West Virginia v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 4:21 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The Court next rejected the accountant’s argument that Ellen was incapable of stating viable negligence and aiding and abetting claims because the Diner’s financial statements, had she read them, would have fully disclosed the fraud to her. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 11:35 am by Michael Oykhman
The actus reus for a lottery offence under s. 207 is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following: The accused did something that was not authorized by s. 207, that is: The accused was not a member of government acting lawfully, the accused was not a charitable or religious organization with a licence, was not a member of a fair or exhibition or a lessee of a licensed or lawful concession, did not agree with the government of another province, as a government member, that… [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 1:47 pm
Disney Enters., Inc., 943 F.3d 239, 251 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Generally, ‘the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation may not be based solely upon the contacts with the forum state of another corporate entity with which the defendant may be affiliated. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 1:44 pm by Patricia Hughes
Round Two: rehearing by the AHRC; an appeal from the AHRC’s 2020 decision (Amir and Siddique v. [read post]
His Honour stated that “transparency is not an independent element of unfairness as defined in s 12BG(1)”[10] and, accordingly, must be considered within the context of the three criteria within that section. [read post]