Search for: "State v. Stevens Equipment Co." Results 21 - 40 of 81
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2017, 4:36 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Howey Co., which states that a security is an investment contract in which a person 1) invests their money; 2) in a common enterprise; 3) with an expectation of profits; 4) based on the efforts of the promoter or a third party. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 11:03 am by Ronald Collins
I note that the two of you are credited not as editors but rather as co-authors of sorts. [read post]
3 May 2016, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University and co-author, most recently, of Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm by Jared Beck
(Citizens United itself overruled a 20-year old precedent, Austin v. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. prophetically stated in his dissent from the infamous 1905 case of Lochner v. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 12:24 pm
Cowles Media Co. (1991), stressed that the holding in Florida Star was based on the fact that “the State itself defined the content of publications that would trigger liability. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 8:27 am by Schachtman
The plaintiff relied upon two witness, a co-worker of her husband, and an expert witness, Steven R. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:13 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Scott Ashton Riggs, Darrell Parlee, Steven Manderfeld, Ashton Oilfield Services, LLC, Ashton Equipment, LLC, AOS 1-A, L.P., and AOS 1-B, L.P.Case number: 13-cv-04403 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas)Case filed: November 1, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: July 11, 2014 08/21/2014 11/19/2014 2014-83 SEC v. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:35 am by Peter Margulies
  However, avoiding that harm is not as simple in Al-Nashiri’s case as it is in the cases that Justice Stevens cited in Hamdan I as permitting federal court intervention, such as Toth v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:09 pm by Eugene Volokh
“It is well established . . . that the limits of permissible state accommodation to religion are by no means co-extensive with the noninterference mandated by the Free Exercise Clause. [read post]