Search for: "State v. Janes"
Results 321 - 340
of 1,484
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2021, 2:17 pm
ShareThe Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in, Cummings v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 3:48 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized questions come from Jane C. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 9:31 pm
The basis for the preliminary injunction were: a First Amendment challenge to the hours-of-operation and beach-drinking ordinances (Counts III and VI); a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the Spring Break Ordinances (Count IV); an Equal Protection challenge to the Spring Break Ordinances (Count V); and a state-law land-use-planning challenges to the beach-drinking ordinance (Counts XI–XIV). [read post]
19 Sep 2020, 3:47 am
Public.Resource.Org that dealt with eligibility of copyright protection, stating that the non-authoritative status of annotations indicated that the creation of the annotations would fall outside of legislative duties.And even more recently, she authored the long-awaited decision regarding the "Booking.com" service mark, in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 7:00 am
In Jane Doe No. 1 v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 7:30 am
On 2nd November 2015 the Supreme Court heard the case of Regina (Wang Yam) v the Central Criminal Court and Her Majesty’s Attorney General. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 7:21 am
Supreme Court decided Whitfield v. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 2:56 pm
Bell v. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 7:29 pm
I previously posted about the case of Miken v. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:39 pm
In three recent posts, I've sharply criticized briefs filed by the Department of Justice--and by the Solicitor General, in particular--in the various iterations of the Hargan v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 5:01 am
From Day v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 10:02 pm
[OL; OC Register; Ogilvie v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 3:23 pm
MIKE SMITH, JOHN DOES 1-100, JANE DOES 1-100, XYZ COMPANY, Defendants. [read post]
22 Sep 2007, 8:32 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:19 pm
I know, I know, that sounds even dumber than the claim of being fired for being too sexy, but it’s true, he actually did make such claims as I wrote about a year ago: Empire State Building v. [read post]
26 May 2017, 10:12 am
IRAP v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 am
Henry v. [read post]
25 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
In 2009, in Houseman v. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 5:50 pm
Dorris v. [read post]
7 May 2018, 5:53 am
In [an earlier precedent, State v.] [read post]
