Search for: "Janes v State" Results 341 - 360 of 1,614
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2008, 3:48 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized questions come from Jane C. [read post]
19 Sep 2020, 3:47 am by Hayleigh Bosher
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]
28 Feb 2016, 9:31 pm by Patricia Salkin
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]
6 Nov 2015, 7:30 am by Kristiina Reed, Six Pump Court
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 Mar 2008, 7:29 pm
I previously posted about the case of Miken v. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:39 pm by Marty Lederman
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]
13 Feb 2007, 8:24 am
Remember Dan Alterman's estimate of $47,000, for the value of the billable hours spent on the Charney v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:19 pm by Eric Turkewitz
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]
13 Jan 2015, 7:40 am
(Photo by Zofia Smardz/The Washington Post) It’s in Justice Scalia’s opinion this morning in Whitfield v. [read post]