Search for: "Chapel v. State" Results 221 - 240 of 471
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Nov 2015, 7:33 am by Lorene Park
Her request for a protective order was denied because she had claimed emotional distress and her emotional state (expressed on Facebook) was relevant, as were the times she was obviously awake and online (Appler v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 3:33 am by Jani Ihalainen
The case has since reached its newest milestone, which will be cause for celebration for many, and a loss for the few.For the uninitiated, the case of Rupa Marya v Warner/Chapell Music Inc dealt with the aforementioned song "Happy Birthday to You", which was created by the Hill sisters, Mildred and Patty, in the late 1800s (although only in melody). [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Parker Distinguished Professor of LawUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel HillAuthor, Reparations: Pro and Con (2006) and Reconstructing the Dreamland (2002)  [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 8:46 am by Howard Friedman
The suit asserting state law claims failed to name the state as a defendant.In Moon v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 8:02 am
Il commence ainsi un duel judiciaire, dans lequel ce qui compte ne sont pas les faits, mais leur interprétation et lacapacité des deux avocats.Ce sera la justicequi gagnera ou bine l'habileté dans la manipulation des évènements? [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 8:38 am
But the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Skinner v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
State limits choices of individuals to protect them from consequences of their own decisions. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:09 pm by Lyle Denniston
 Second, the Court has shown no inclination to overrule outright the most recent ruling allowing the use of race in college admissions — its 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 9:44 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
”   Ben Affleck’s appearance at San Diego Comic Con this past weekend to promote his upcoming film, Batman v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
In R v Marcott, Justices Arbour and Osler concurred that an element of the offense was “that deception is practiced…and that the person undertaking to tell fortunes represents that he has the power to do so with the intention that such representation should be believed”, and “[where an] assertion, or undertaking [to predict the future] is made for reward…with intent to deceive, the offense is complete. [read post]