Search for: "People v. Commons" Results 5281 - 5300 of 14,102
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
Dorf) addresses some of the common puzzles, themes, and challenges that animate and confront both the pro-life and animal rights movements. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 10:56 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Property v. liability rules. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 1:12 am by Frank Cranmer
In Abdullah Yalçın (No. 2) v Turkey [2022] ECHR 473, the applicant was a convicted prisoner in a high-security prison. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:32 am by Sean Wajert
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the seminal cases in this area, American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
It is now for Mr Sivananthan to establish that the posts complained of are of defamatory tendency at common law, but also pass the threshold set out in section 1 Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 10:00 pm
On the other hand, the primary argument for retaining the traditional boundaries of the tort is that it “seem[s] preferable to fashion other remedies, such as unfair competition, to protect people from having intangible values used and appropriated in unfair ways” (Prosser & Keeton, Torts § 15, at 92) … “[I]t is the strength of the common law to respond, albeit cautiously and intelligently, to the demands of commonsense… [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 3:21 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Felix Wu: If some people are confused, then you’re mixing up people who are confused and people who experience what the law calls dilution. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 7:02 am by Moseley Collins
Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 113-144] and matters beyond common experience [People v. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 3:46 pm
In support of his overture, Klingel stated, `I'm serious we can get married and travel the world killing random people. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 7:14 am by emp
The court in Martin quoted a key portion of the Cochrane decision: “If the pleading claims a common law claim for breach of privacy, BMO argues that there is no such claim: Mohl v. [read post]