Search for: "State v. Word" Results 6181 - 6200 of 40,640
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2021, 1:47 am by Donald Dinnie
In the first appellate court decision on the issue (Oral Surgeons P.C. v The Cincinnati Insurance Company, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No 20-30211) it was held that an Iowa dental clinic had no claim for losses due to government-imposed Covid-19 restrictions. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 6:01 am by Josh Blackman
Fifth, the word "Officer," as used in the Succession Clause, refers to those who hold "office . . . under the United States" and those who are "Officer[s]" of "the Government of the United States. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 11:32 am by Joseph D. Kearney
This standing rule of the public dedication doctrine was far from perfect (we shift to the past tense because the Illinois Supreme Court repudiated the common-law version of the doctrine in 1970, in Paepcke v. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 7:56 am by Randy E. Barnett
Suppose Congress passes a law stating that, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 9:43 am by Venkat Balasubramani
A car dealer refused to sell him a vehicle because, in the words of the salesperson, he was “on a terrorist list. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 7:30 am by Ian Richardson
The North Carolina Court of Appeals appears to have ruled in Pedlow v. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 8:09 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
In my view, then, it is the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material who is publishing the libel when a person follows a hyperlink to that content. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 5:30 am by Kevin LaCroix
” The issues for board consideration could include “corporate size, organic v. non-organic growth, market strength, efficiencies, economies of scale and pricing models. [read post]
17 Jul 2021, 4:38 am by SHG
But use of the word “fuck” has already been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court as a means of political expression, as has obscenity, and its use, vulgar thought it may be and unpleasant as it is for the neighborhood, is protected as explained by Justice Harlan in Cohen v. [read post]