Search for: "Smiley v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 166
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2021, 1:21 pm
Mahanoy Area School District v. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
(IPKat) Maximising IP and intangible assets: new report (IP finance) (Innovationpartners) Protecting developing countries through the Trips Agreement: What is the real state of play? [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 6:33 am
The first argument is rooted in a recent SCOV case, State v. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 9:02 pm
Supreme Court’s 1932 decision in Smiley v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:00 am
Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc (Class 46) (IPKat) EPO: Should green technology be subject to compulsory licensing? [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 7:15 am
Peter [smiley face]. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011 In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to… [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 7:10 am
Broadcom Corp. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 7:10 am
Broadcom Corp. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 4:32 am
While consumer groups have already threatened to challenge the OCC rules, the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Smiley v. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 7:07 am
Moreover, finding that the employers’ meal period policy in an employee handbook was not an agreement which converted the employees’ paid meal period time into “hours worked,” the court concluded that the FLSA’s prohibitions against offsetting were inapplicable to this case (Smiley v E. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 12:05 pm
Peter [smiley face]. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 10:00 am
This made Steve Jobs’ email response back to Eric Schmidt infamous, which only consisted of a smiley face when he was told that the recruiter who violated the no call rule was terminated. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 1:48 pm
(See Smiley v. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 1:11 am
See Smiley v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:17 pm
COLORADO) The Office of the United States Trustee 999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 1551 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 312-7230 [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 7:46 pm
See Smiley v. [read post]
15 Nov 2021, 2:45 pm
From Town of Brookfield v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. [read post]
