Search for: "Phillip J Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 209
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2022, 4:30 pm
On the same day Steyn J heard an application in the case of Ince Group v Persons Unknown On 27 April 2022 Nicklin J heard a mode of trial application in the case of Blake v Fox. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 4:56 pm
The Guardian covers the ongoing defamation case between Ben Roberts Smith and the Age, Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 4:18 pm
Judgement was handed down in Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari [2022] EWHC 173 (QB) on the 1 February 2022 by Murray J. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 9:46 am
She joins Co-Chair Douglas J. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 9:46 am
She joins Co-Chair Douglas J. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 9:46 am
She joins Co-Chair Douglas J. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 8:26 pm
Right-to-carry laws and violent crime The most-cited study supporting New York's very restrictive law is John J. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:52 am
Summaries are also posted to Smith’s Case Compendium, here. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• J. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• J. [read post]
24 Jan 2021, 9:35 am
Paul J. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 8:30 am
Arthur (Emory), Michael J. [read post]
21 Nov 2020, 4:11 pm
, 2020 ONSC 6469 Phillips J dismissed a libel action arising out of an email concerning the competitive ringette under the Anti-SLAPP provisions in Ontario. [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 3:44 pm
The baker Jack Phillips, for example, “stopped baking wedding cakes altogether, sacrificing about 40% of his business. [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 12:21 am
See Smith, 494 U. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 12:13 pm
Smith & Andrew R. [read post]
3 Jul 2020, 6:09 am
Chuff, Joanna J. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 3:00 am
In the non-precedential case of Phillips v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 8:13 pm
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday morning in three cases concerning whether the provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making it unlawful for a covered employer to “discriminate against” an employee “because of such individual’s . . . sex” prohibits such an employer from firing an employee because he’s a gay man or because she's a transgender woman. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am
This event is closed to the public.Student Presenters:Jonathon Booth, Harvard University (jonathonbooth@g.harvard.edu) The Birth of Policing in Post-Emancipation JamaicaLauren Feldman, Johns Hopkins University (lauren.feldman@jhu.edu) Constructing Legal Matrimony and the State in New York and the United States: Debating New York's Marriage Act of 1827 and its EffectsJamie Grischkan, Boston University (jgrisch@bu.edu) Banking, Law, and American Liberalism: The Rise and… [read post]
