Search for: "Bare v. Bare" Results 3721 - 3740 of 5,021
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2017, 10:51 am by Jordan Brunner
Carrie Cordero outlined a few quick thoughts on making national security arguments in court based on Washington v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 1:57 pm by Arshan Barzani
German princes wrote to King George V, offering to substitute themselves for the kaiser. [read post]
22 May 2021, 7:12 am by Florian Mueller
No, I don't want to gloat, but it's mind-boggling what happened yesterday in that Oakland courtroom at the end of the main part (they're done apart from closing arguments on Monday) of the Epic Games v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
This objection is so insubstantial as barely to be worth mentioning except for the fact that it is widely repeated. [read post]
1 May 2015, 9:19 am by John Elwood
That petition asks “whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:19 am by J. Gordon Hylton
Forty-five years ago, the baseball world trained its attention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its impending decision in the case of Wisconsin v. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 2:55 am by Peter Mahler
If ever there was a ticking time bomb of a family-owned, closely held business more likely to result in business divorce litigation than the one in Matter of Brady v Brady, 2021 NY Slip Op 02705 [4th Dept Apr. 30, 2021], I haven’t seen it. [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 3:40 pm by Schachtman
And no surprise, Bayesian methods barely register in a systematic survey of the last 25 years of published studies. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:18 pm by Lyle Denniston
Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument in Samantar v. [read post]
29 May 2016, 10:52 am by Giles Peaker
The decision letter of 10 November 2015 did include a s.192(3) decision (that last line) albeit one that the court found reluctantly, give the bare statement. [read post]