Search for: "People v Robert Johnson" Results 1 - 20 of 548
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2024, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
"  But even assuming that reasonable people could disagree about those points, the obvious antisemitic and anti-American campus incidents are too numerous to list comprehensively. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm by Ryan Goodman
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Normative foundations of business may include the moral and not only economic value of promises, morally articulated fiduciary duties of agency (including duties of care, candor, and loyalty), and the obligation to show respect to all business participants, including a moral imperative to treat employees and customers as people who deserve dignity and due recognition – and not merely as means to the ends of making profits for others.[20] Adam Smith and his followers in contemporary… [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 12:24 pm by Josh Blackman
[Professor Shugerman's argument that the 1793 Hamilton Document, that is, a list of "every person holding any civil office or employment under the United States, (except the judges)," was intended to ensure compliance with the Constitution's Sinecure Clause lacks support.] [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 7:15 pm by Barbara Moreno
Johnson, ed., Annotations to Surplus Lines Statutes (2023). [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
As Purcell recounts, the Taft Court understood itself as an unmediated channel for the values and mores of the American people. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm by Bruce Ackerman
Only Justice Roberts dissented. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia Ben Roberts-Smith’s 10-day appeal against a decision dismissing his defamation case over reports in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald starts on 5 February 2024. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]