So, basically, the vast majority of evidence suggests that you can't use this «loophole» for 2017; however, there is a small minority view / some small amount of belief that this treatment would work for 2017 taxes and it is worth noting that I'm
unaware of any court cases directly testing this approach.
Still, I would note that I'm
unaware of any court cases directly testing this theory.
Not exact matches
(I note reports from other states to the contrary, apparently because
of failure to to
court orders, but I am
unaware of any such
cases in South Carolina.)
We are
unaware of any test
case, but even the most conservative
court would be unable to deny these protections to one party
of a same - sex marriage, for example.
First, for those
unaware of what «Daubert» refers to, the name comes from the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals lawsuit, which subsequently led to the Daubert Standard, regarding what kind
of expert testimony is permitted in
court cases.
Little did I know that, in the dank toilet
of DC justice, they can, on the one hand, have two trial judges simultaneously ruling on the same
case while, on the other hand, be entirely
unaware of whether their own anti-SLAPP law is appealable and thus require a decision from the Appeals
Court on whether the law is appealable before the appeal can be appealed.
Some people are
unaware that they must file their accident claims in
court or settle with the insurance company within a specific amount
of time or their
case expires, ending any chance at receiving compensation.
In a
court case with a jury, many
of those selected may be
unaware of the reasons for the defendant's actions, mainly because they are uncertain how much the condition impacts on that individual's view
of the world.
A final risk is that the trial
court would normally be
unaware of these offensive allegations if the opposing party failed to raise them in his or her
case - in - chief.
In this
case, the
court maintained that the worker did not show the employer knew
of the danger from prior occurrences, that he himself was
unaware of any dangers, and that the employer actively misled the worker
of the project's safety.
That
court determined that the defendant had failed to present evidence that it was
unaware of the dangerous condition, and the
case should not have been dismissed.