Search for: "People v Word"
Results 541 - 560
of 17,902
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
The violation is complete when sales below cost are made with the requisite intent and not within any of the exceptions.' (People v. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 6:53 am
People who were not right-wing, of course, viewed it as anti-communist hysteria, a throwback to the McCarthy era, and that's the way I've seen the word "treason" all this time. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 9:33 am
This would bring the written word to millions of blind, visually impaired and print disabled people from around the world, who are currently starved of books. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
(People v. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 2:03 am
Section 1 requires more than a tendency for the meaning of words used to make people think less of a claimant; there has to be evidence of the impact. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 5:20 am
The issue at the center of People v. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 3:02 am
People v. [read post]
7 Sep 2013, 7:55 am
I mention the cost issue here because ‘2 v. 3’ often devolves into ‘2 x $45,000 v. 3 x $45,000. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 7:22 am
Detroit Bd. of Ed. last year in Friedrichs v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 6:22 am
” People v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 10:01 am
Judge Leon writes a strongly worded opinion, that is rather narrow in actual scope, but contains a good deal of important reasoning. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 11:54 am
The Ninth Circuit appeal, Joffe v. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 11:14 am
Recently Barney Frank argued that Justice Antonin Scalia was a homophobe on the basis of two of Scalia's strongly worded dissenting opinions in Lawrence v. [read post]
19 Dec 2021, 9:03 am
However, the word “Luxury” and Defendant’s trademark are not alike….the dissimilarity between the marks suggests that Plaintiffs did not intend to deceive the public by incorporating the word “Luxury” into the title of their advertisement. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 1:59 pm
People v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 9:58 pm
Miranda v. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 8:53 am
The contributions to this on-line symposium on S.B. 1070 and Arizona v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:04 pm
As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart observed, "'[P]roperty does not have rights, only people do.'" (p. 254 [attorney Scott Bullock quoting Potter Stewart].)In other words, with eminent domain, it's about people, not property.Jeff Benedict's Little Pink House especially reveals and revels in the human drama surrounding the Kelo v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 11:08 am
The United States Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Kentucky v. [read post]
