Search for: "State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court"
Results 201 - 220
of 401
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Oct 2013, 8:20 pm
Notes for: --Marbury v. [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 2:13 am
http://j.st/pQV United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 2:31 pm
Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 8:16 am
See United States v. [read post]
23 May 2010, 12:36 pm
The Delaware Supreme Court, in Elf Atochem North America, Inc. v. [read post]
16 May 2014, 2:41 pm
The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the intervenors. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 8:43 am
In 1961, the Supreme Court made clear in Monroe v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 10:48 am
In Peiroo v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm
North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 8:13 pm
Superior courts, by virtue of the [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 2:34 pm
Board of Education and Loving v. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 3:13 pm
Taxpayer thought this was too high and appealed to the appropriate local board, and then to the superior court in Windham County. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 8:52 am
Pending Litigation Before the California Supreme Court Could Extend the Deadlines for the Citizens Redistricting Commission What about the August 15, 2021 deadline for the Citizens Redistricting Commission to redistrict federal congressional, state legislative, and board of equalization districts? [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 9:52 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Steven Kiser v. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 11:27 am
State, 378 N.J. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 12:54 am
Each Member State had to be given a margin of discretion in how it promoted the neutrality of the public service in the workplace [33] – and Directive 2000/78 only established a general framework for equal treatment in employment, which left a margin of discretion to the Member States and to their infra-State bodies [34]. [read post]
30 May 2009, 4:57 pm
The Court acknowledges that "all things being equal" the greater offer would be preferred by the shareholders, but the court notes that in comparing competing offers for a merger, "all things are rarely equal. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
It is of at least equally profound concern that the defendant spent many months in remand custody for offences for which factually exculpatory evidence has long been in the possession of the state. 3. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 1:33 pm
The Supreme Court in Pascale v. [read post]
