Search for: "Tobacco Express, II, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 68
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2024, 10:30 am by Eugene Volokh
My UCLA School of Law students Aaron Boudaie, Eimile Nolan, and Simon Ruhland and I had filed an amicus brief, on behalf of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), PEN American Center, Inc. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 7:20 am by Sasha Volokh
First, in Part II, I argue that erotic-expression taxes are indeed content-discriminatory and should be evaluated under strict scrutiny. [read post]
12 May 2023, 11:45 am by Ben Sperry
In other words, while a duty of care could reach harrassing conduct, it is unclear how it could reach pure expression on online platforms without implicating the First Amendment. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 11:55 am by admin
On the first part of her proferred opinion, Judge Irving expressed his skepticism that Oreskes’ opinion would be helpful to the jury; Oreskes’ testimony might give the jury a framework that could be used to assess whether Mann’s work was fraudulent or not. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 10:20 am by admin
Both of these defense expert witnesses attributed Roverano’s lung cancer to his tobacco use. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 8:59 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The public vaccination program was a national strategy developed to address this threat, and these were core policy decisions as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Imperial Tobacco. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 7:32 am by Jon L. Gelman
Griffith (R-VA), transfers marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 9:07 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the January 10 conference) Arlene’s Flowers, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:44 pm by admin
Part II will analyze the Kelo parties’ briefs from a practical perspective and provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
(ii) While there may be a greater need to disseminate works of fact than works of fiction, The Nation’s taking of copyrighted expression exceeded that necessary to disseminate the facts and infringed the copyright holders’ interests in confidentiality and creative control over the first public appearance of the work. [read post]