Search for: "Cross v. Powers"
Results 341 - 360
of 4,828
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2023, 12:50 pm
" Pretty powerful evidence, no?) [read post]
10 May 2023, 10:47 am
HvJ EU 24 november 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:923, NIPR 2022-549 (Tilman/Unilever) / p. 51-58 Abstract Tilman v. [read post]
10 May 2023, 5:16 am
Our pleas for courts to enjoin harmful digital activity are entirely consistent with the principles and origins of the application of equitable judicial power. [read post]
5 May 2023, 1:48 pm
Raich, which held that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce was so broad that it allowed it to ban the possession of medical marijuana that had never crossed state lines or been sold in any market, even within a state. [read post]
5 May 2023, 6:30 am
These criss-crossing trends lead to my only real quibble with this bracing study. [read post]
4 May 2023, 7:48 am
Considering the rise of Asian SEP holders in this period, one can assume that the total across all SEP holders, accounting for the value of cross-licenses, has increased compared to the earlier estimates of around USD 20 billion. [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:51 pm
§ 841 as it crosses the Texas state line at some point and enters into the federal jurisdiction. [read post]
2 May 2023, 10:13 am
Supreme Court still wields enormous, and often harmful, power over the country. [read post]
1 May 2023, 4:36 am
Not according to a recent decision from the California Appellate Courts, Crane v R. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 5:46 am
"The Court held in R.A.V. v St. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 11:12 am
The post Unusual Cross-Ideological Agreement in Tyler v. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 8:29 am
John v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 7:24 am
In other words, EPA and Congress are moving in synchrony rather than at cross-purposes. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 1:30 pm
Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 12:54 pm
John v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 12:52 pm
See Doe v. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 10:29 am
He had some pretty strong words about the decision of his predecessor Sir James Munby in a case called A v. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 8:41 am
Blake v. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:41 pm
Assailed from all quarters for being not tough enough, for being too tough, for being fundamentally misconceived, for threatening freedom of expression, for technological illiteracy, for threatening privacy, for excessive Ministerial powers, or occasionally for the sin of not being some other Bill entirely – and yet enjoying almost universal cross-party Parliamentary support – the UK’s Online Safety Bill is now limping its way through the House of Lords. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:58 pm
That is because doing so crosses a line that leads to anarchy and chaos. [read post]
