Search for: "Com. v. Future, T." Results 41 - 60 of 321
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
By: Mark Stepanyuk The United States led the world in internet usage throughout the 1990s and “[a]t the time of the Dot-com-crash less than 7% of the world was online. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 6:29 pm
– Megan Ma (Sciences Po/Stanford University)Discussant: Gregory Lewkowicz (ULB)Paper: Catala: Moving Towards the Future of Legal Expert Systems, Denis Merigoux (INRIA), Liane Huttner (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)Discussant: Rajaa el Hamdani (Télécom Paris)Paper: Ant, an annotation software for RegTech, Raphaël Gyori (ULB)Discussant: Damien Charlotin (AI Reporter/ University of Cambridge)Lunch –11.45am –… [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:30 am by Sherron Watkins
Attorney for the District of Columbia and general counsel for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:05 am by Eugene Volokh
But in the real political world, many such proposals are not enacted just with an eye towards the hypothetical future. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 6:43 am by Russell Knight
Industrial Com., 343 NE 2d 504 – Ill: Supreme Court 1976 “[T]he expert’s testimony is but “the opinion of the witness given on facts assumed to be true” McKenzie v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 7:26 am by Kyle Persaud
Board of County Com'rs, County of Kay) You are mentally incapacitated (,Roberts v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 7:26 am by Kyle Persaud
Board of County Com'rs, County of Kay) You are mentally incapacitated (,Roberts v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 12:22 am by JR Chaves
The literality of the rule led to the absurdity that any lawyer who had the slightest suspicion of unconstitutionality of a rule, would invoke it in the litigation «just in case» in the future one day a sentence would declare the unconstitutionality. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 2:26 pm by Dennis Crouch
& Taxation of Com. of Mass., 499 F.2d 60, 62 (1st Cir. 1974) (Bank is a “public governmental body” whose “interests seem indistinguishable from those of the sovereign”) Jet Courier Servs., Inc. v. [read post]
” See Rest. 2d Torts § 766, com. g, § 768, com. i (“One’s interest in a contract terminable at will is primarily an interest in future relations between the parties, and he has no legal assurance of them. [read post]