Search for: "William C. Reed" Results 1 - 20 of 191
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am by Eugene Volokh
If A conspires with B who conspires with C, all are linked in one conspiracy—even if A does not even know that C exists (and vice versa) and even if their specific plans diverge in many details.[23] (This is why the Amar brief repeatedly speaks of, for example, "Floyd and other top officials" and "Floyd and his allies. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 3:00 am by Will Baude
Michael Stokes Paulsen and I have a new draft article: The Sweep and Force of Section Three, that is forthcoming in the Pennsylvania Law Review. [read post]
8 Jan 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
After all, the first secessionists met in Hartford in 1814, and William Lloyd Garrison famously endorsed “no Union with slaveholders. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:55 am by David Kopel
"[C]ourts should not 'uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,' because doing so 'risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.'" Id. [read post]
6 May 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The communications show how Williams Companies and TC Energy Corporation worked to boost political support for a number of natural gas infrastructure projects currently under federal review. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 9:05 pm by Stephen M. Bainbridge
The question of corporate purpose has been much in the news of late, triggering renewed attention by legal scholars to corporate social responsibility, ESG, and shareholder value maximization. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 10:24 am by Charles Weller and Nick Wright
Counsel for WFS was Paul Henton (instructed by Reed Smith) and counsel for Carnival/P&O were John Kimbell QC and Celine Honey (instructed by Watson Farley & Williams). [read post]
6 Feb 2021, 4:30 am by Guest Blogger
Admittedly, any predictions about Kavanaugh’s vote will rest on quite a slender reed. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 4:42 pm by Eugene Volokh
The court went on to conclude that the policies chilled the speech of Speech First's members enough to allow the challenge to go forward: "[C]hilling a plaintiff's speech is a constitutional harm adequate to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 4:42 pm by Eugene Volokh
The court went on to conclude that the policies chilled the speech of Speech First's members enough to allow the challenge to go forward: "[C]hilling a plaintiff's speech is a constitutional harm adequate to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. [read post]