Search for: "STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. POWERS" Results 1 - 20 of 90
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Because the state tax authority issued an assessment based on its examination of the taxpayer’s books and records, an assessment is afforded a presumption of correctness.7 This presumption of correctness means that the department of revenue satisfied its prima facie requirement to establish the basis for an assessment. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am by Edward Craven, Matrix Chambers.
The meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in s. 133 was previously considered by the House of Lords in R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 18; [2005] 1 AC 1. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 3:50 am
Secretary, Department of Corrections ¸ (CaseNo. 8:06-cv-01330-T-17MAP decided August 7, 2007). [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:00 am by Josh Blackman
As I noted on Lawfare, the court ignored the most relevant precedent, United States ex rel. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 1:18 pm by Josh Blackman
Yates, the Justice Department was not even permitted to defend the order. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 8:30 am by Mark Wortman
Disclosure of Military Retirement Benefits The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 3:35 pm by Jack Sharman
  Is the Executive Branch (the Department of Justice or the regulatory agencies) looking at the same issue? [read post]