Search for: "People v. Potter"
Results 41 - 60
of 301
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2021, 1:17 pm
Justice Hoch's attempt to distinguish Potter just doesn't work. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 1:00 am
Data is not available for 2020 and 2021. [11] Section 218 of the Act. [12] Wilkinson v Kitzinger (No 2) [2007] 1 FLR 295, per Sir Mark Potter P at [50]. [13] See paragraph 21(2)(d) of Schedule 5; paragraph 5(2)(d) of Schedule 6; and paragraph 10(3)(a) of Schedule 7. [14] GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108; IX v IY [2018] EWHC 3053 per Williams J at [68]; MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649. [15] Levin, I. (2004). [read post]
17 May 2021, 8:23 am
A recent case, Otto v. [read post]
5 Apr 2021, 7:23 am
Other people may be interested in some or all of them. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 5:00 am
” In the 1964 landmark case of Jacobellis v. [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 1:00 pm
Los Angeles v. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 12:05 pm
” Durham v. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 1:38 pm
Miller (Wikipedia) U.S. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 7:48 am
"This is consistent with how Oracle to the Federal Circuit years ago, with its Harry Potter analogy, which was just genius. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 12:17 pm
Paris v. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 5:00 am
Potter Stewart Associate Justices, U.S. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 1:00 pm
“When violence breaks out at what was a peaceful protest, the people involved may or may not be the same ones. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 7:00 am
Benjamin EidelsonThis post offers preliminary analysis of DHS v. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 2:00 am
Potter, 2004). [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 2:00 am
Potter, 2004). [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 7:55 am
” This overbroad formulation is a far cry from the definition set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm
Bickel’s account – essentially, to emphasize the principles underlying the 14th Amendment and its capacity for growth, rather than how people at the time understood it – is of a piece with one of the ways originalists try to save their approach from generating unacceptable conclusions. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 9:27 am
” If you misspell Harry Potter’s name—or put it in kanji—we’ve got you covered. [read post]
14 May 2019, 7:29 am
The types of people appointed to the court have also changed. [read post]
