Search for: "IN RE C A MILLER MINOR" Results 41 - 60 of 88
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am by MOTP
Rueda argues that because the unsigned opinion of Judge Davidson was his first decision, he could not re-determine the merits in a subsequently signed decision. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
In re Sharp 15-646Issue: (1) Whether Johnson v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 7:34 am by Schachtman
Alper seems to be a minority view, but its approach is attractive in streamlining discovery, eliminating subpoena service issues for expert witnesses who may live outside the district, and forcing the sponsoring party to respond and to obtain compliance with its retained expert witness. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 6:15 am by John Elwood
Alabama, holding that a sentencing minors to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 2:00 pm by John Elwood
Thanks to Ralph C. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Schachtman
” Much of protection probably took place because Selikoff’s testifying took place in the past before electronic files of transcripts could circulate rapidly, and even minor cases were posted to internet databases. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 7:42 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The court also says that imposing failure to warn liability is consistent with the overall purposes of Section 230, which as set forth in sections (c)(1) and (b) encourages self-regulation of offensive content and seeks to protect the free-flow of information via intermediaries. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 2:58 pm
Code § 2241(c) (Counts 1 and 2); two counts of interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am by Devlin Hartline
The answer, it turns out, is that not all speech is treated the same way, and, despite the minority view held by some absolutists, the First Amendment does not protect all speech. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm by Marty Lederman
  Therefore the Court is not being asked to provide an impermissible advisory opinion. c. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 6:25 am by SO Issues
Miller The law provides a way for some to end the ill effects of Oregon registry [name withheld] got some good news in September. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm by Eugene Volokh
I quote below the body of the argument in the brief, minus the footnotes; but if you’re interested in the issue, you might just want to read the PDF. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling as to the release of discovery documents disclosing Father M's name under Rule 26(c), because the public's serious safety concerns could not be addressed if Father M's name was redacted. [read post]