Search for: "Phillips v. Robinson" Results 1 - 20 of 79
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by The Regulatory Review
Robinson, Center for Health Decision Science; Craig Thornton, Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis; and W. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:18 am by Daniel J. Gilman
” Apart from that—and his utterly mysterious position on the anti-consumer Robinson Patman Act—he seems to have done the right thing. [read post]
29 Jan 2023, 4:40 am by Frank Cranmer
Masterpiece Cakeshop again In Scardina v Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc (CO Ct App. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 6:30 am by Gus Hurwitz
After a few days of misreporting on the opinion in West Virginia v. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 2:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
It is not often that a court allows reargument, states that it misapplied the law, and reverses itself as took place in Orlando v Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene  Genovese & Gluck, P.C. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 6:43 am by James Romoser
Here’s a round-up of other Supreme Court-related news and commentary from around the web: Biden’s Top SCOTUS Lawyer Should Be Woman, Court Watchers Say (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson & Jess Bravin, Bloomberg Law) Supreme Court Rejects Texas Inmates’ Plea for Stronger Health Measures (Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal) Smith Has Got to Go (James Phillips, National Review) Supreme Court Declines Appeal Backed by Illinois School Districts on Tax Remedies (Mark… [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 6:00 am by Andrew Hamm
Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 5:31 am by Barry Sookman
Here is my submission to the INDU Committee conducting the s.92 review of the Copyright Act. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: Kimberly Robinson reports for Bloomberg Law on research showing that “[t]he female members of the U.S. [read post]
27 Oct 2018, 7:52 am by INFORRM
  As the Court of Appeal said in Chaytor, (which Lord Phillips in the Supreme Court approved), it would be ‘impossible to see how subjecting dishonest claims for expenses to criminal investigation would offend against the rationale for parliamentary privilege’ (emphasis added). [read post]