Search for: "People v. Bear" Results 3521 - 3540 of 5,252
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2022, 6:02 pm
 Pix Credit HERE I thought it useful to share the Chinese and English translation of the 中华人民共和国个人信息保护法  Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 7:48 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Gov’t shouldn’t instruct people what to buy. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 2:06 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Cotter, Nominal Damages—and Nominal Damages Workarounds—in Intellectual Property Law TransUnion v. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am by Eugene Volokh
Have they made allegations arising out of the same fact pattern, which might bear on the allegations against you? [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:49 am by John Elwood
People who owned such weapons before the effective date of the law are permitted to retain them, subject to some geographic restrictions on use; otherwise, possession is a crime. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 1:15 am by Máiréad Enright
’ Forced married is not yet criminalised in the UK and is generally regulated at civil law. [1] Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments in Bibi v SSHD (reported at High Court and Court of Appeal as Quila v SSHD.) [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
"Well, state court judges are savvy and powerful people. [read post]
27 May 2016, 8:00 am by John Elwood
” That’s a lot of disagreement for people who agree on the disposition of a case. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:00 am by INFORRM
Eady J had refused to strike the claim out as a Jameel abuse, but had confined the relevant readers who might have understood the article to bear a defamatory meaning by way of innuendo: see [2010] EMLR 18 (QB). [read post]
17 Jan 2015, 3:13 am by David Cruz
City of Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment protected citizens’ (itself an odd limitation) right to keep and bear arms, only Justice Clarence Thomas embraced the Privileges or Immunities Clause, despite a significant body of constitutional scholarship suggesting that that clause was supposed to protect people’s fundamental rights. [read post]