Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Although this may seem a simple matter of trespass with an unavoidable fine, it may amount to a case of implied contract (i.e. "if you park here, you agree to pay a penalty"); and such a "penalty" (read "damages") must be proportionate or else the fine will be void. Also, since the penalty notice could have been attached to the windscreen, the ...
The outstanding debt may be subject to interest rates as high as 12% in Washington state or 15% in California. In Florida, collection fees may be assessed up to 40% of the total value of the amount owed, and in 1994, Arizona added a "felony surcharge" amounting to 83% of the original amount of debt imposed by courts.
Most new employers in the state of Indiana start with a 2.5% unemployment tax rate unless your company is a construction company, successor company, or a government entity, at which point your tax rate is 2.53%, .5% to 9.4%, 1.6% respectively. [9] Indiana employers are required to pay unemployment taxes for any year in which they have employees ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Here's a look at how weekly unemployment claims changed in Indiana last week compared with the week prior. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been ...
Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), was a case [1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, under Sherbert v.