Search for: "In re Victoria C." Results 1 - 20 of 259
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jan 2014, 3:17 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 20 January 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 4:49 am
In re Moxley Homes, LLC, Serial Nos. 88882171 and 88882239 (February 11, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 10:10 pm
But British Columbia's Patients Property Act, RSBC 1996, c. 339, is about as precise an instrument for assisting adults with diminishing capacity as a chain saw is for brain surgery.The recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case of Re Grav, 2007 BCSC 123, illustrates these points well.Fritz Grav lived in Ontario from when he immigrated to Canada in 1956 until February 2005. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 8:30 am
© National Portrait Gallery, LondonQueen Victoria by Aaron Edwin Penleywatercolour, circa 184016 in. x 13 3/8 in. (405 mm x 340 mm) unevenGiven by John Steegman, 1959NPG 4108Astute readers of this blog may question why the National Portrait Gallery would claim copyright in the above reproduction of a portrait of Queen Victoria done circa 1840.I'm glad you asked. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 1:55 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
In contrast, the IRS specifically states that: A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family… If you’re not sure whether an organization is a qualified organization for tax-exempt purposes, you can ask to see their documentation from IRS – or check directly with IRS using Select Check. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 2:12 am by Laura Sandwell
Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria), heard 20 – 21 January 2014. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 5:17 am
 6:15 pm for a 6:30 pm start.If you're interested in attending, email Simon Clark here.The Pirate Bay communicates to the public: are there any more online infringement questions to be answered? [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 12:32 pm by emagraken
That does not mean that “capital” loss translates to “property” under s. 67 in the bankruptcy context: para. 20; and c. the essential nature of the monies paid for the future loss of income must be considered. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 2:49 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 17 February 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 2:02 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 3 March 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 1:43 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 31 March 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 4:34 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 17 March 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 1:18 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 3 February 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 3:19 am by Laura Sandwell
The post In the Supreme Court w/c 24 March 2014 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]