Search for: "In the Interest of D. M. (Dissenting Opinion)" Results 641 - 660 of 727
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
I prefer to just get a ball,[3] so I’m only payin’ one eighty for it, instead of two Ts for two hundred, that way . . . it would be easier for any to get up. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 6:02 am by stevemehta
Though we understand the policy concerns advanced by the Court of Appeal majority, the plain language of the statutes compels us to agree with the dissent. [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 5:12 pm
General Counsel filed motion for partial summary judgment June 20, 2006. *** Southern Monterey County Hospital d/b/a George L. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
This is because malicious falsehood is classified as an “economic tort” designed to protect financial interests, rather than “emotional wellbeing” [4]. [read post]
25 May 2018, 6:41 am by John Elwood
To make things more confusing, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion reversing course, while Justice O’Connor (actually, Chief Justice O’Connor) wrote the dissent – just not the ones you think. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 6:36 am
  Yet it is particularly interesting as the issue arises in the wake of the victory of Mr. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 2:23 pm by Eugene Volokh
Spokane Arcades, Inc. (1985): "the [a] average person, [b] applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, [c] taken as a whole, [d] appeals to the prurient interest" (which means a "shameful or morbid" interest in sex as opposed to a "normal, healthy" interest); "the work depicts or describes, [a] in a patently offensive way [under [b] contemporary community standards], [c] sexual conduct specifically… [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 11:36 am by Bona Law PC
“These plus factors may include: a common motive to conspire, evidence that shows that the parallel acts were against the apparent individual economic self-interest of the alleged conspirators, and evidence of a high level of interfirm communications. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 5:29 am by Aaron Tang
Noia, 1963, one of the most dishonest opinions in the history of the Supreme Court. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am by Eugene Volokh
Judge Beam dissented in part: A correct evaluation of the record, in my view, compels a finding that the department’s actions would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected political speech. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 12:47 pm by admin
Identified members of the committee include: Steven M. [read post]