Search for: "People v. Wills" Results 4161 - 4180 of 5,064
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2011, 8:56 pm by TDot
The law school views its job as providing an opportunity to people who are willing to take advantage of it, regardless of how they “measure up” on paper. [read post]
31 Mar 2025, 6:58 am by Dan Bressler
An actual conflict exists where an attorney has ‘divided and incompatible loyalties within the same matter necessarily preclusive of single-minded advocacy,’ whereas a potential conflict is one that may never be realized (People v Cortez, 22 NY3d 1061, 1068 [2014]). [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 12:00 am by George M. Wallace
Supreme Court in the affirmative action case of United Steelworkers of America v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm by Schachtman
Pre-Daubert Before the Supreme Court decided Daubert, few federal or state courts were willing to roll up their sleeves to evaluate the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. [read post]
29 May 2017, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
For the former, benchers would have to do the work; for the latter, other people do the work. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
” And, at a similarly crucial point in Matal v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 1:31 pm by JB
It was also addressed by the doctrine of Swift v. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 12:10 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Intermediate v. strict scrutiny standard: but that’s one of the principal disputes right now. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 1:41 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
For example, there are at least lawyers out there willing to argue that actors’ performances are separately copyrightable independent of the audiovisual works in which they appear. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm by Florian Mueller
As a result, many people complain and want a "cash-only option": they want a contract for their water that comes with no such requirements. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 10:30 am by Marty Lederman
Not surprisingly, there are already a slew of reactions to the Court's landmark decision on Friday in Carpenter v. [read post]