Search for: "Felts v. State"
Results 5341 - 5360
of 5,754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2023, 7:55 am
Below, I elaborate first on how transaction costs doom the aims of age-verification and verifiable parental-consent laws, and then consider the state of First Amendment precedent for anonymous speech as it relates to age-verification laws. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm
In Geduldig v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 12:55 pm
Without independence, there is no Brown v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 9:32 am
Verdict: wrong. (9) As a result of the jury's guilty verdict in U.S. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 12:30 am
The Supreme Court has made the above statements in SEBI v. [read post]
8 May 2017, 9:01 pm
”Rizo v. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 10:08 am
I always felt Ed looked after our [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 4:34 am
By way of example, there is already OHIM case law relating to designs used on toy cars as opposed to real cars (Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA, ICD 842, 13 November 2006), as well as a decision of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales relating to a design that can function as both a laundry aid, and a massage device (Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc & Ors [2008] EWCA 358). [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 10:04 pm
Reasons for judgement were released today (Heppner v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 9:01 pm
A federal district court’s recent ruling in Thomas v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 7:24 pm
In Illinois v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:21 am
United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) and Griggs v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 6:09 am
Structural Shifts: concomitant widespread elimination of (i) supermajority voting requirements, (ii) staggered or classified board terms, and (iii) stockholder rights plans (often done to avoid or compromise likely stockholder proposals), accompanied by limitations on (iv) change-in-control executive severance agreements, along with (v) increased stockholder rights to call special stockholder meetings, in tandem with (vi) highly publicized proposals advocating multiflavored… [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 7:56 am
Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, et al. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 11:56 am
The first injunction doesn't matter anymore because Motorola recently felt forced to accept an offer by Apple (which is not even based on a particular amount of money since the royalty rate will have to be set by a court of law) for taking a license to Motorola's wireless SEPs. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 1:03 pm
Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. [read post]
29 Sep 2024, 3:41 pm
Department of State. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court, in Washington v. [read post]
1 Nov 2024, 11:40 am
For example, the above quoted Section from Chapter H-V 2.7 cannot be found in the Guidelines of 2009 or of 2013. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 2:44 pm
In today’s case, Thauili v. [read post]
