Search for: "Williams v. Cover" Results 541 - 560 of 2,775
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jul 2020, 7:18 am by Eric Goldman
CafePress * Cafepress Suffers Potentially Significant Trademark Loss for Users’ Uploaded Designs * Life May Be “Rad,” But This Trademark Lawsuit Isn’t–Williams v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 8:40 am by Eugene Volokh
"[2] These voter protection laws seem to have covered threats not just of physical violence but also of legal coercion,[3] and they may have covered threats of economic retaliation as well—a similarly general 1854 English statute[4] was applied to threats of economic retaliation and not just those of physical attack.[5] The bans on threats, from 1721 to the 1860s, were included alongside bans on bribery; given that offering to provide a financial benefit in exchange for… [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 5:54 am by Jed Handelsman Shugerman
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Seila Law v. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 7:56 am by Stephen Griffin
  The conference is viewable on YouTube.The sequencing problem is related to an originalist argument advanced by Justice Harlan in dissent in Reynolds v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 9:21 am by Christine Corcos
The article offers for the first time a detailed account of the process by which William Howard Taft authored his pathbreaking opinion in Myers v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 9:21 am
The article offers for the first time a detailed account of the process by which William Howard Taft authored his pathbreaking opinion in Myers v. [read post]
The governor mapped out the state’s plans to cover the $54.3 billion budget deficit as a result of the impacts from the coronavirus. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Although neither of President Trump’s appointees joined it, one of them—Justice Neil Gorsuch—wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:13 pm by Amy Howe
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in which the court ruled that government employees who are not represented by a union cannot be required to pay a fee to cover the union’s costs to negotiate a contract that applies to all employees; and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]