Search for: "People v. Utter" Results 581 - 600 of 1,147
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2015, 7:48 pm
Equally, the European Court of Human Rights considers that the principles set out in the preamble to the Convention refers to the Convention as a whole (see,  inter alia , ECHR rulings  Engel and Others v. the Netherlands on June 8, 1976, Klass and Others v. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 12:09 pm
I also think the Supreme Court was right in Cohen v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 1:05 pm by Sandy Levinson
He notes not only that literally millions of people would lose their coverage in Republican states, but also that premiums would likely skyrocket and set up the "death spiral" of health insurance. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 7:06 am
’ [Munroe] then made a list of comments she wished she could write, such as: `A complete and utter jerk in all ways. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 12:48 pm by Giles Peaker
Straightforwardly unlawful. b. is, I presume, based upon a misapprehension of Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames [2009] UKHL 7 [our report]. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 4:08 am by SHG
When SJ was in its infancy, a post of mine was picked up at Volokh Conspiracy, which was already a well-established blog, by Ilya Somin, who wrote: Over at Simple Justice, Scott Greenfield has an astonishing post about a criminal case that deserves much wider attention: People v. [read post]
21 Dec 2014, 2:31 am
Sampling of musical recordings is a topic that excites a lot of people in the United States, where the bulk of the world's litigation on that subject appears to have taken place. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am by Administrator
For lawyers, understanding verbal fillers provides a lesson in how to approach these pesky utterances, which for most of us have come with a lifetime of stern admonishments to avoid using them at all costs. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 6:06 am by Giles Peaker
SSWP v David Nelson and Fife Council, SSWP v James Nelson and Fife Council [2014] UKUT 0525 (AAC) And the upshot? [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 4:21 pm by INFORRM
Although the Court refers to “the potential damage to the television company’s reputation which the book might have caused” (par. 42), the substance of the allegations uttered by Matúz had already been made accessible through an online publication and was known to a number of people. [read post]