Search for: "Grooms v. Miller" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
Although I am not a Jew, I am, following Jonathan Miller, “Jew-ish, just not the whole hog. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 8:54 am by Eric Goldman
The statute defines “harmful to minors” material using the standard Miller test for obscenity, modified for kids (roughly following the statute upheld the Ginsburg v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 9:22 am by Schachtman
Although I am not a Jew, I am, following Jonathan Miller, “Jew-ish, just not the whole hog. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
Miller, New York City, for petitioners. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 5:49 am by Allred & Allred
Miller – Car Accident Settlement Release, Feb. 20, 2016, Montgomery Car Accident Lawyer Blog [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 5:49 am by Allred & Allred
Miller – Car Accident Settlement Release, Feb. 20, 2016, Montgomery Car Accident Lawyer Blog [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 5:49 am by Allred & Allred
Miller – Car Accident Settlement Release, Feb. 20, 2016, Montgomery Car Accident Lawyer Blog [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 5:49 am by Allred & Allred
Miller – Car Accident Settlement Release, Feb. 20, 2016, Montgomery Car Accident Lawyer Blog [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm by Eugene Volokh
They share either of two characteristics: (1) the definition of the banned communication usually tracks the definition of obscenity as defined by the Supreme Court in Miller v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
Strangelove" (16) "Flight of the Conchords" (4) "Game Change" (2) "Get Smart" (1) "Gran Torino" (10) "Grey Gardens" (13) "I Shouldn't Be Alive" (4) "Limelight" (3) "Meet the Press" (20) "Moby Dick" (5) "My Dinner with Andre" (34) "Mystery Science Theater" (2) "Project Runway" (78) "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion" (3) "Seinfeld" (72) "Sex and the City" (14) "Slacker" (11) "Slumdog Millionaire" (16) "SNL" (60) "Sopranos" (50) "South Park" (71) "Star Trek" (12) "Star Wars" (25) "Survivor" (50)… [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 6:44 am by Christa Culver
§ 2000cc et seq., to require only a minimal showing that a prison grooming rule which concededly imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise is the “least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 4:25 am by Howard Friedman
The court held that because of factual disputes, neither side was entitled to summary judgment.In Miller v. [read post]