Search for: "Case v. People" Results 2641 - 2660 of 51,991
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Sep 2011, 10:43 am by Larry Ribstein
Last year I wrote here about Roni LLC v Arfa, which I cited as an example of the ”troubling lawlessness of NY LLC law. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 5:06 pm by INFORRM
However, the reasons of the majority in this case should be treated with caution. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Aitken v DPP ([2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin)) the Divisional Court dismissed a former editor’s appeal against a conviction for publishing a story which breached an anonymity order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 5:07 am by Jamison Koehler
” The standard was further refined by a succession of Supreme Court cases, including United States v. [read post]
9 May 2007, 10:34 am
That ain't gonna encourage many non-bankruptcy people to read much further.Here's how I'd have begun the thing: "This case presents a new issue for our court: whether a debtor who is entitled to a tax refund of thousands of dollars can instead leave that money with the IRS, file for bankruptcy seven days later, and then say 'Ha, ha. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 2:34 am by Supreme People's Court Monitor
I wrote most recently on the SPC’s use of cases in December, 2019, when I wrote How the Supreme People’s Court guides the lower courts through cases in its publications (1). [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 12:54 am by CMS
Whilst a large number of criminal cases have been adjourned pending the outcome of this decision, the use of evidence obtained by PH groups has been considered in a previous Scottish decision, namely Procurator Fiscal, Dundee v P H P [2019] SC DUN 39. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:25 pm by Lyle Denniston
  The case of Janus Capital Group v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 3:47 am by Russ Bensing
The other notable case last week was Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm by Marty Lederman
  There's simply no reason at all to think that the 2017 Congress believed that anyone (no reasonable person, anyway) would purchase unwanted insurance because of a "sense of legal obligation" engendered by the 2017 statutory amendment.But even if there were some such unreasonable people out there (such as, perhaps, the individual plaintiffs in the case) who mistakenly read the amended Section 5000A to require them to purchase insurance, those… [read post]