Search for: "Minnesota v. Wisconsin"
Results 381 - 400
of 449
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2021, 1:09 pm
Co. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 5:25 am
[25] These are called “de minimis visit exceptions” and are utilized in states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. [read post]
27 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
In Shelby County v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 2:56 am
We therefore, conclude this loss falls within the coverage of the Bond, in accordance with Minnesota law. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 4:26 pm
United States (for a CT discussion see State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 9:58 am
States which use separate (rather than combined) reporting and nevertheless seek to tax GILTI face a serious constitutional challenge, particularly under the precedent of Kraft v. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 4:55 am
” In a recent case, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 5:11 am
In addition, CGS published over 70 books and reports on a wide range of campaign finance and governance topics, including in-depth studies of laws in California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina (judicial) and Wisconsin, as well as local governments Albuquerque, Los Angeles (city and judicial), New York, Portland, San Francisco, Suffolk County, New York, Tucson and 15 other local California jurisdictions. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 4:40 pm
The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Arizona (2), California (3), Colorado (6), Connecticut (1), Delaware (1), Georgia (1), Iowa (2), Illinois (5), Kentucky (2), Massachusetts (4), Maryland (2), Maine (3), Minnesota (6), Missouri (1), Montana (1), North Carolina (2), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), Nevada (2), New York (1), Ohio (3), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (4), Virginia (2), Washington (6), and… [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 5:05 am
Our prediction of winners: 1-1, against the spread 1-1ThursdayKentucky v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 5:25 pm
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued on April 16, 2020 two orders[1] largely denying requests for rehearing of its prior decisions that, among other things, subjected to minimum offer price thresholds energy resources participating in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 6:30 am
This most certainly would include members of the Minnesota Senate! [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 4:03 am
En Serrano v. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am
(Center for History and Economics, Harvard University)Moderators: Elizabeth Lhost, Dartmouth College (elizabeth.d.lhost@dartmouth.edu) and Emma Rothschild, Harvard University (rothsch@fas.harvard.edu)Convener: Kalyani Ramnath, Harvard University (kalyaniramnath@fas.harvard.edu)Debjani Bhattacharya, Drexel University (db893@drexel.edu) South Asia 1Julia Stephens, Rutgers University (julia.stephens@rutgers.edu) South Asia 2Tatiana Seijas, Rutgers University… [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
Noah Kravitz), LinkedIn (Eagle v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
Noah Kravitz), LinkedIn (Eagle v. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 6:25 am
The Federal Election Campaign Act and Buckley v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 5:51 pm
In Duncan v. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 7:23 am
The NBAM initially covered eight states, but now includes 22 states total: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. [read post]
