Search for: "State v. Dominic"
Results 2741 - 2760
of 4,510
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2014, 2:03 pm
This essay is adapted from his foreword to Eugene Volokh, Sebelius v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:14 pm
But in covering the case of RS v SS [2013] EWHC B33 (Fam) he’s done just that. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 10:48 am
Bucci and Jews for Jesus v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:32 am
Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 206 (1838); State v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 5:24 am
Jordan v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:05 am
Clashes at the state medical board level are inevitable as traditional medicine struggles to keep hold of markets that it has dominated for years. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:27 am
The threshold issue in Sebelius v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:52 am
The upshot of the points, taken together, is that Hobby Lobby's own brief calls into serious question whether the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish that the HHS rule imposes a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.As for the first question: Hobby Lobby's brief, like Conestoga Wood's, confirms that these cases are not really about the question of corporate religious exercise that has dominated the briefing and public reporting.Hobby Lobby makes… [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 7:26 am
If nonfalsifiable speech about someone else’s trademark can be banned because it’s only used to get attention, build image, or amuse consumers, the result is special positional advantages given to now-dominant brands. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 4:36 am
Issues like federalism and state action doctrine do bear on 1A issues. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 9:35 am
Answer: The increasing dominance of jurisdictional and statutory interpretation cases reflects a bare majority of the current Court’s and, in particular, Chief Justice Roberts’s concern with limiting the role of the Court and federal judiciary. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 6:07 am
v=SY9PoR7-XGA.) [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 6:07 am
v=SY9PoR7-XGA.) [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm
Copyright: Baker v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
Finkelman v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 2:52 pm
Here’s the backstory, according to Reuters: It was a significant victory for vocal campaigners among Virginia’s 82,000 Korean-Americans, who greatly outnumber the state’s 19,000 ethnic Japanese and showed up in the hundreds to cheer the vote in the state capital, Richmond. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 12:51 am
The Ninth Circuit arguably erred because, while relying on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 US 569 (1994), it overlooked the part of Campbellin which the majority stated that the defence of fair use may apply to a satire if “there is little or no risk of market substitution [of the original work with the later work], whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, . . . [read post]
1 Feb 2014, 6:55 am
And Wells linked to a District Court ruling in United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 9:52 am
In FTC v. [read post]
