Search for: "STRAND v. US " Results 301 - 320 of 640
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Nov 2016, 2:44 am
There are, of course, substantial shortcomings and blind spots to the Indian Constitution – ADM Jabalpur, Koushal, Ranjit Udeshi, Rajbala v State of Haryana, etc, etc. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 5:00 am by Jonathan H. Adler
As Thom Lambert argues in chapter six, the Court has shown a greater willingness to use antitrust to police horizontal restraints of trade than vertical restraints or unilateral conduct. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 11:33 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Another strand: behavioral economics, trying to understand whether the neoclassical framework holds up. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 4:00 am by Legal Beagle
  In Bartos v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2015 SC 690, at its own instance the court raised a question as to the proper approach to certain provisions in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act). [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 12:12 pm
So how do we square these apparently contradictory strands of thought? [read post]
Where adjoining owners or occupants of land use the land for pasturing sheep or swine, each “shall keep that one’s share of the partition fence in such condition as shall restrain such sheep or swine. [read post]
Where adjoining owners or occupants of land use the land for pasturing sheep or swine, each “shall keep that one’s share of the partition fence in such condition as shall restrain such sheep or swine. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 6:09 am
 Under that statute, it is `unlawful for any person to use a computer or computer network to . . . [read post]
9 May 2016, 5:28 pm by Mark Tushnet
(The constitutional argument builds on Romer v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 10:21 am by Meg Kribble
Individuals and organizations interested in contributing to the African Online Digital Library are invited to contact us. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 4:06 am
Supreme Court Association for Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
27 Feb 2016, 1:01 am by INFORRM
The case I attended was listed as AM -v- UH and EO and TH 1281945401 – Where UH should live – HEARING IN PUBLIC. [read post]