Search for: "People v. Day (1992)"
Results 461 - 480
of 903
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2021, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 3:04 pm
Up to $8000 per work—the statute says up to $150,000, but a jury has awarded that in Capitol Records v. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 5:04 pm
” Messenger v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
Georgia and McClesky v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 2:35 pm
The man served fewer than 70 days in jail in the mid-1980s for a sex offense when he was 19. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:00 am
The Court of Appeals had previously recognized an exception to the at-will doctrine in Wieder v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 6:00 am
We're not sure there's enough to carry the day in court. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 9:26 am
In Lugo v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:11 am
Because I spent the next week talking to people about the post, I reviewed her scholarship again and had some more thoughts. [read post]
23 May 2015, 9:00 pm
., Petitioner, v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 3:58 pm
Gordon, 974 F.3d 1110, Ninth Circuit, 1992. [read post]
29 May 2017, 6:52 pm
Nationalist Movement (1992)). [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 7:55 am
Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (holding that state common law torts were something that was subject to preemption), Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2007, 9:00 pm
The citation for the Santorelli case you list is People v. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 4:59 am
Hart v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 7:38 am
Introduction Common Interest Communities have become a way of life for the American people. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
In New York v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 4:05 pm
Dicta in RM (AP) (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) (Scotland) (SC(Sc) [2012] 1 WLR 3386, [2012] UKSC 58 (which considered Regina v. [read post]
21 May 2024, 8:17 am
An eyewitness reported that one of the people involved was a dreadlocked Black man. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 3:32 pm
The Majority qualifies the question by referring to certain facts of record: "Does a party 'prevail' if it obtains a temporary restraining order the day after it files suit . . . but 22 days later is denied a preliminary injunction because the opposing party's voluntary change of position moots the case? [read post]
