Search for: "In re Richard T"
Results 261 - 280
of 7,055
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2014, 12:11 pm
Richard Re has another great post, this one on whether Supreme Court justices should think about politics in deciding how long to hold their offices, and how they should talk about those thoughts. [read post]
20 May 2014, 9:16 am
Richard Re has another entertaining post at his new Supreme Court-focused blog, this time about the use of exclamation marks in judicial opinions. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 9:57 am
article L. 321-3 alinéa 2 du Code de commerce – et que la société « eBay » ne reçoit aucun mandat des vendeurs et ne procède à aucune adjudication. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 4:14 pm
Isn’t this discussion premature? [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 5:15 am
Judge Richard Stearns has determined that the U.S. is not currently at war, but was between 2001 and 2004, a decision that will allow the federal government to pursue a fraud case against a group of Boston construction workers. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 11:26 am
They’re getting away with perversion! [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 4:36 pm
Sometimes they're things I just pound out with (in retrospect) insufficient thought. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:02 pm
Next thing you know they're going to say Red Bull doesn't really give you wings. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 8:20 am
Richard Re (University of Virginia), and found it very interesting; I asked Prof. [read post]
22 May 2013, 3:13 am
We’re not unlike our clients in that respect. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 6:47 am
Briefly: At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses “Supreme Court signals” from Monday’s order list, which contained two statements by Justices respecting the denial of certiorari. [read post]
5 Feb 2022, 4:00 pm
Colangelo wasn’t candid when he couldn’t recall dates of various meetings. [read post]
13 May 2008, 7:35 am
And then I have to re-read it. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 1:46 pm
You're not alone. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 4:59 am
A column by Richard Zoglin in WaPo. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 5:35 am
You're talking about a fraudulent transfer. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 2:56 pm
Richard H. [read post]
17 May 2009, 11:00 pm
Doesn't that seem more than just a little odd? [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:34 am
Materius: We don't know for certain. [read post]
21 May 2018, 4:03 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re remarks that although “[t]he Justices often intone that theirs is ‘a court of review, not of first view,’” “last Monday’s decisions illustrate the complexities underlying that maxim,” suggesting that “the ‘first view’ principle is more discretionary than it often appears—and that the Court could do more to explain what guides its choices in this area. [read post]
