Search for: "People v Bottom" Results 361 - 380 of 2,713
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2021, 9:54 am by Eric Segall
This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. '[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.' [quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 3:27 pm by Giles Peaker
As pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Rakusen v Jepson (our note) and as summarised by the FTT: The definitions are wide enough to include a number of different people in respect of a property. [read post]
14 Dec 2021, 2:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
At the bottom of the market for Steinhoff, the stock dropped as much as 85%, eliminating €10 billion of the company’s market value. [read post]
11 Dec 2021, 9:34 am by Eric Goldman
Ancestry Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Advertising “Background Reports” on People–Lukis v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Although I have seen smart people suggest this argument as something one or more Justices might endorse, I have difficulty taking it seriously. [read post]
13 Nov 2021, 6:48 am by Michael C. Dorf
The bottom line is wrong but not entirely unreasonable, as I shall explain. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 12:48 pm by Daniel Shaviro
Indeed, unless a given jurisdiction has the requisite market power, it is likely to make itself worse-off on balance, not just the people in other jurisdictions, by reason of imposing them. [read post]