Search for: "Matter of Clara F." Results 21 - 40 of 169
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2021, 11:21 am
(2) Allowing new causes of action (“COA”) beyond the three predicate offenses such as child labor, or for that matter slavery or genocide, may or may not pose a difficult challenge. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am by Eric Goldman
  (If you are interested in a longer in-depth explanation of the facts and legal background, you may listen to my one-hour lecture, presented to Santa Clara students before the oral argument.) [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 5:22 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The judicial development was the First District’s December 29, 2020 published decision in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 12:16 pm by Jason Kelley
  Mansour was tried by a civilian court and found to be "in contempt of religion," a crime under article 98(f) of the Penal Code. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 11:25 am by Jason Rantanen
(Fig. 1) Ex parte appeal decisions addressing 101 subject matter appeared to stem their rise. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 12:08 am by JR Chaves
Se apercibe “que en caso de no hacerlo le parará el perjuicio a que haya lugar en derecho”, fórmula peligrosísima donde las haya, pero que deja a todos sumidos en la incertidumbre del alcance de las consecuencias de cumplir o no con la diligencia final. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
This matters because calling it false designation of origin relieves plaintiff of the burden of showing materiality. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 7:15 am by Eric Goldman
Overview of the Bill The bill has three main components: dictating procedural operations for UGC sites (what I call the “Santa Clara Principles”); reducing Section 230; and requesting studies. 1) “Santa Clara Principles” The Santa Clara Principles emerged alongside the Santa Clara University conference on Content Moderation and Removal in 2018. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 5:04 pm by Sarah Andropoulos
However, under standards such as Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5(f), 10(c), and 43(b)(2), as well as corresponding state laws, videoconferencing is only permitted in criminal proceedings if a defendant consents. [read post]