Search for: "People v. Andrews (1999)"
Results 1 - 20
of 124
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2023, 6:21 am
So this was different from the troop of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, looting during the 16th century. [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 11:03 pm
Reprinted with permission from the NYS Bar Association, this article first appeared in the EASL Journal, 2023, vol. 34, no. 1. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:56 pm
The statute covers a very wide variety of federal officers and people acting under the direction of federal officers–including elected officials, federal civil employees, federal law enforcement officers, judges, postal workers, military officers, and more. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
It's based on amicus briefs that Michael Dorf (Cornell), Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern), and I filed in past cases (and that I blogged about before), but it elaborates somewhat further on that argument. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 9:00 pm
Congress did just that in the Ethics in Government Act, but SCOTUS upheld the independent counsel in Morrison v. [read post]
7 May 2023, 11:43 am
Several ill people reported the same restaurants, indicating possible clusters. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:53 am
Cramer, Concealed Weapon Laws of Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (1999), plus the Appendix to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh's Fourth Circuit supplemental brief in Bianchi v. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 4:00 am
Nor does this COVID-19 vaccine requirement discriminate on the basis of any of the four grounds recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to date as being analogous, which include i) citizenship (Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 143); ii) marital status (Miron v Trudel, 1995 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 418; Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh, 2002 SCC 83); iii) sexual orientation (Egan v Canada, 1995… [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 5:06 am
In National Assn of Broadcasters v. [read post]
14 Aug 2022, 2:01 pm
I've long been troubled by the relatively aggressive versions of this "most-favored-nation" theory, starting with my A Common-Law Model for Religious Exemptions article in 1999 (pp. 1539-42) on to my Fulton v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 2:15 pm
L.J. 557, 643-44 (1999). [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm
Haviland used to work for/with the first (The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd) and second (Lownie) defendants. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 6:47 am
Since Grupo Mexicano in 1999, the U.S. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
28 May 2022, 2:25 pm
First, it’s ridiculous to call the Castle Rock v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
In Francis v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:00 am
While in State B, Alex spanks Andrew in a way that causes Andrew to fall down, bloody his mouth, and lose a tooth. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
Occasionally, there have been calls for businesses to simply not deal with certain people at the outset—consider Castaneda v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 5:01 am
" Relying upon Wyman v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 1:37 am
Kaim Todner [1999] QB 966 to conclude that “embarrassment and reputational damage” are ordinary concomitants of litigation, and therefore “social opprobrium is not sufficient to justify an anonymity order” at [52]. [read post]
