Search for: "The People v. Wells" Results 21 - 40 of 30,245
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2024, 12:00 pm by Jack Garvey
It requires that the state protect its natural resources for all people, present and future. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 6:50 pm by Thomas B. Griffith
 So, this argument from the Archive was unsuccessful as well. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 5:20 pm by Bill Marler
For example, produce has, since at least 1991, been the source of substantial numbers of outbreak-related E. coli O157:H7 infections.[27] Other unusual vehicles for E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks have included unpasteurized juices, yogurt, dried salami, mayonnaise, raw milk, game meats, sprouts, and raw cookie dough.[28] According to a recent study, an estimated 93,094 illnesses are due to domestically acquired E. coli O157:H7 each year in the United… [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 6:39 am by Eric Goldman
The court says the defendant confused consumers “by paying for prominent placement in search results for consumers searching for ‘Texas Tamale’ and ‘Texas Tamales,’ as well as by using the phrase “Texas Tamales” in online advertisements. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 10:12 am by Katitza Rodriguez
Domestic Spying Powers and Domestic Safeguards The Convention grants extensive domestic surveillance powers to gather evidence for any crime, accompanied by minimal and insufficient safeguards, many of which do not even apply to its chapter on cross-border surveillance (Chapter V). [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 6:12 am by Keith Mallinson
As stated by the judges’ decisions in Unwired Planet v Huawei and TCL v Ericsson, respectively: “Based on my assessment of both experts, I am sure the disagreement represents cases in which reasonable people can differ. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 5:11 am by Michael Oykhman
Carrying, storing, handling, shipping, transporting etc. have all earned different interpretations by the courts as well. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 9:16 am by Eugene Volokh
Well, it doesn't protect that speech from the landowner's decision about what to exclude; the Klan, for instance, had no First Amendment right to force the Cana, Virginia property owner in Black v. [read post]