Search for: "Doe II v. Doe I" Results 301 - 320 of 12,272
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Feb 2024, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
In that context, Steyn J concluded that the remaining claim for compensation and/or damages under the UK GDPR and DPA 2018 was “bound to fail” ([143(i)]). [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am by Will Baude
And interpreters must resist the temptation to assume that their own views are so obviously correct that all opposing views are in this category – thinking, I am so surely right, that if I were wrong, somebody would have said so! [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
  Trump’s “I did not engage in insurrection” assertion, in turn, consists of two distinct arguments—namely, (i) that Trump did not incite the violence at the Capitol because he did not intend his followers to use violence; and (ii) that, in any event, incitement to insurrection doesn’t qualify as “engaging in” insurrection, because Section 3 does not establish “vicarious liability. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 7:30 am by Alysa Z. Hutnik
” A “telephone solicitation” is defined as “an organized activity, program, or campaign to communicate by telephone with residents of Maryland in order to: (i) sell, lease, or rent goods or services; (ii) attempt to sell, lease, or rent goods or services; (iii) offer or attempt to offer a gift or prize; (iv) conduct or attempt to conduct a poll; or (v) request or attempt to request survey information, if the results of the survey will be used… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 2:38 am by Mayela Celis
This book is divided into 7 parts: Part I – Introduction Part II – Histories of liberalization Part III – The promise and limits of decriminalization Part IV – Abortion in popular politics Part V – Movements against abortion Part VI – Race, sex and religion Part VII – The role of international human rights   Part II – Histories of Liberalization Part II begins with a historical journey of the abortion… [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 5:45 pm by Ilya Somin
Part II explains why disqualification in the absence of a criminal conviction does not violate Mr. [read post]