Search for: "STATE OF MICH V CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY" Results 21 - 40 of 53
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2018, 1:58 pm by Eugene Volokh
Mich.); note that the decision did not consider any argument that there should be a religious exemption under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act for purely symbolic nicking or even minor excision that (some some have argued) doesn't cause any real harm and is much less intrusive than male circumcision. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 1:58 pm by Eugene Volokh
Mich.); note that the decision did not consider any argument that there should be a religious exemption under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act for purely symbolic nicking or even minor excision that (some some have argued) doesn't cause any real harm and is much less intrusive than male circumcision. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:26 am by Dennis Crouch
In a new paper (Business Methods, Technology, and Discrimination, 2018 Mich. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 1:43 am by Joseph Leahy
 It is quite common for a partnership to operate a business using the real property of only one partner. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 5:22 am
Although the Supreme Court has never specifically defined what constitutes a seizure in the electronic world, it has stated that, with regard to physical items, `a ”seizure” of property only occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. [read post]
20 May 2013, 6:00 am by David Kris
  Again, in the past we have distinguished between collection in the United States and abroad,[20] but location seems to be harder and harder to determine in real time. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 2:54 am by Peter Mahler
Scholastic Inc. v Harris, 259 F3d 73, 85-86 [2d Cir 2001]; Johnson v Kennedy, 350 Mass 294, 298, 214 NE2d 276, 278 [1966]; Posner v Miller, 356 Mich 6, 9, 96 NW2d 110, 111-112 [1959]; Nicholes v Hunt, 273 Or 255, 261-262, 541 P2d 820, 823-824 [1975]; Willman v Beheler, 499 SW2d 770, 775 [Mo 1973]; Fisher v Fisher, 83 Cal App 2d 357, 360, 188 P2d 802, 804 [1948]). [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:13 am by Wahab & Medenica LLC
For example, New York Labor Law §201-d protects employees engaging in recreational or certain political activities if they are off duty and not using work equipment or work property. [read post]