Search for: "People v. Dukes" Results 421 - 440 of 707
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2010, 5:58 am by Maxwell Kennerly
But unless you can get a class action certified — tricky, but possible, like in Dukes v. [read post]
31 Aug 2007, 6:05 am
Part of the problem, no doubt is that confusing decision of the Supreme Court in Philip Morris v. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 12:16 pm
"This report at SaveTheCourt.org, under the aegis of the conservative People for the American Way. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:47 pm by FDABlog HPM
  Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Health Subcommittee held a hearing on PDUFA V. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 7:29 pm
Kamins was the lead plaintiff in the case, Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 12:21 am
Kamins was the lead plaintiff in the case, Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 5:54 pm by Bill Otis
 See Justice Scalia's lone dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
10 May 2007, 8:08 am
The third type of problem, exercise of power of without authority, is suggested by the Appellate Division's decision Tuesday in People of the State of New York, by Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney Gen. of the State of New York v Grasso, 2007 NY Slip Op 03990. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 10:38 am by Gene Takagi
White people, mostly | My new story for Medium looks at big foundations that have yet to share power with people of color.Nonprofit Quarterly: “Only by disrupting existing negative patterns and replacing them with positive ones can we hope to achieve the anti-racist systems change…” https://bit.ly/3m9vP7R #nonprofit #blackleaders #nonprofitleadersForbes: 28,000 Charities Had Tax-Exempt Status Revoked After Trump Administration ‘Error,’ Lawmakers… [read post]
22 May 2008, 5:48 pm
David Duke or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (for instance) would strike me as such a person. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 4:04 am by SHG
And there are a few who are bad people. [read post]
16 Jun 2006, 3:49 am
Thus, it was argued by the defendant, the court should dismiss the case, as damage to reputation in England that was more than nominal had not been proven.Several very famous non-Internet libel cases were, however, cited by Jameel as precedents that " under English law there is a presumption of damage in libel cases, [thus] the plaintiffs did not have to adduce evidence of damage arising from the publication of the article in question": see eg Duke of Brunswick v Harmer… [read post]