Search for: "STATE v. AMARAL" Results 421 - 440 of 641
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2014, 12:31 pm
The next part of Judge Posner’s discussion: I noticed a citation in the court’s opinion to a case from my court, United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:31 pm by INFORRM
United States On 16 June 2014, in the case of Sarah Jones v Dirty World Entertainment [pdf] the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a libel judgment in favour of a former cheerleader for the Cincinnati Bengals Football Team. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 10:32 am by Jeremy
This issue that has been debated by copyright experts over the years because, it is argued, the destruction of an artwork may or may not have a negative impact on the reputation of the artist – the test established by Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, and mirrored in most copyright laws in the world, for claiming a violation of the artist’s right of integrity (in the context of Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India, I commented: “destruction of a work can… [read post]
22 May 2014, 2:39 pm by Jeremy
If the project goes ahead, we could witness a a potential replay on American soil of the scenario in the notorious Indian case of Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:44 am by Bruce Ackerman
For example, the New Deal/Civil Rights legacy may well give new support to religious conservatives, like Michael McConnell, who argue that the pervasive state interventionism of the modern era require a change in the constitutional base-line for assessing religious access to public facilities and subsidies. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Indeed, the Little Rock case, Cooper v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 5:27 pm
Most originalist scholars today believe that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies all or nearly all of the Bill of Rights against the states, following the pioneering work of Akhil Amar and Michael Kent Curtis on this issue. [read post]
The three-judge panel there held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in United States v. [read post]