Search for: "People v Austin"
Results 641 - 660
of 939
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
A second follow-up case, Steinmetz et al v Germany, was filed in 2022. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 7:25 am
Chief Justice Roberts, of course, suggested his skepticism about the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in his opinion for the Court last year in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. [read post]
11 Sep 2022, 4:28 am
Indeed, this issue came up in my exchanges with Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 5:55 am
Tuberville disagrees with the Pentagon’s reproductive health care access policy that was issued following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 12:27 pm
Other coverage: “Exxon wins, again, in oil field sabotage case” (Austin American-Statesman) The medical-malpractice statute covers factually-related tort claims, even if alleging generic negligence Roy Kenji Yamada, M.D. v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 10:20 am
People get shot. [read post]
24 Oct 2009, 6:11 am
Which brings us to Minnesota v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:54 pm
Newman v. [read post]
18 Mar 2025, 5:01 am
Frank Thorp V, Sahil Kapur, and Ryan Nobles report for NBC News. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:26 pm
Read the opinion here: Atwater v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 6:05 am
Emmerich and Robin Panovka, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Tags: Antitrust, CFIUS, Cross-border transactions, Disclosure, Distressed companies, International governance, Merger litigation, Mergers & acquisitions, SEC, Securities regulation, Taxation Corporations are People Too (And They Should Act Like It) Posted by Kent Greenfield (Boston College), on Wednesday, January 30, 2019 … [read post]
21 Jun 2008, 3:41 pm
Nguyen v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 7:25 am
The case is Dunn et al. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 4:04 pm
The defendant had stated in a tweet Elliot had shot and harassed people during his time in the Ulster Defence Regiment. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 4:02 pm
Defendants have included people who have never even used a computer, and many people who although they have used a computer, have never engaged in any peer to peer file sharing.Sometimes the cases are misleadingly referred to as cases against 'downloaders'; in fact the RIAA knows nothing of any downloading when it commences suit, and in many instances no downloading ever took place.It is more accurate to refer to the cases as cases against persons who paid for internet… [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 6:29 am
Because it seems to me when people start getting beyond Marbury v. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 9:19 am
See Elektra v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
Justice Eakin’s most memorable dissent I’m aware of was in Porreco v. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 11:04 pm
You are fully responsible for the content that you post.Five years ago, the high court ruled that states cannot execute people who are mentally retarded. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 9:06 pm
The Austin-based federal Western District Court for Texas found the United States v. [read post]
