Search for: "People v. Scott M. (1985)" Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
But it should be fairly reliable, and should thus diminish the damage that the AI program may do to people's reputations. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
Requirements Imposed By State Licensing Boards and Medical Professional Societies The involvement of medical professionals in disciplining physicians for dubious litigation testimony, whether through state licensing authorities or voluntary medical associations, raises some difficult questions: Does a physician’s rendering an opinion on a medical issue in litigation, such as diagnosing silicosis, asbestosis, welding-induced encephalopathy, or fenfluramine-related cardiac injury, constitute the… [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 12:46 pm by Mark Walsh
The high court took up the case to reconsider its 1985 decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
4 May 2017, 11:09 am by Calvin TerBeek
And again, I’m going to go over ground that was covered before. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:36 am
(Thanks to Sina Safvati, Daniel Simkin, and Sabine Tsuruda, the Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic students who worked on the brief.) [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:29 am
I’m delighted to report that Michael Rosman and Michelle Scott of the Center for Individual Rights, Lisa Steele of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment), and I have filed an amicus brief on behalf of AWARE in Commonwealth v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:23 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) As the previous post noted, I’m passing along another brief that the UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic has filed in the last few weeks. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 9:35 am by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) I’m delighted to report that the new UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic has filed its first brief, on behalf of the Cato Institute, in Edwards v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am by Devlin Hartline
I think some people dismissed my post completely just based on its title—the reasoning didn’t matter since the conclusions weren’t what those people wanted to hear. [read post]