Search for: "In re David E. (1978)" Results 1 - 20 of 92
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2022, 5:20 am by Bernard Bell
., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978),[1] much like FOIA requesters need have no particular reason to obtain government records. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:04 pm by admin
In “Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses,”[1] I discussed a recent law review article by Professor Edward K. [read post]
The SEC explained: [W]e believe that NEPA requires and authorizes the Commission to consider the promotion of environmental protection along with other considerations in determining whether to require affirmative disclosures by registrants under the Securities Act and the Securities and Exchange Act . . . . [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 1:30 pm
., doing business as Meridith Baer and Associates, and the defendants, Joan E. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 9:00 pm by Vikram David Amar
§ 541, which provides in blanket terms that “[e]ach United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 1:44 pm
Pix credit HEREEthics has always been a term that is easy to pronounce, easier to segregate and narrow, and nearly impossible to produce easy answers. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 10:00 am by Eugene Volokh
[E]xactly what speech a person knows will "tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule" may not be so easily determined in a diverse, pluralistic nation. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
" The appellate court said that as it stood, Cox wasn't entitled to rely on safe harbor because it did very little (if anything) even when told about repeat offenders, re-affirming the jury decision that sided with BMG and awarded $25 million against Cox when they found the broadband carrier liable for piracy by its subscribers, even if over turning that decision. [read post]