Search for: "State v. Harding" Results 6901 - 6920 of 16,071
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Sep 2015, 8:08 am by Martha Ertman
  Absent both logic and foment, it’s hard to see how same sex marriage could lead states to return to the era of 12 year old brides. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 8:18 am by Florian Mueller
If anything, there may be a further shift from Dusseldorf, where I've only attended one patent trial so far (Huawei v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 6:30 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
These rules vary from state-to-state, and many states haven't clearly defined their legal standards. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 12:52 am
 Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd [2014] EWHC 2999 (IPEC), decided by Judge Richard Hacon on 19 September, is another in the line of swift, simple decisions of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, which demonstrate the virtues of that humble tribunal.Cranford Community College (originally Cranford Community School) had since 1975 been a state secondary school. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 1:05 pm by Sandy Levinson
  Perhaps courts can't base (or, at least, publicly admit that their basing their decisions) exclusively on "possible effects," but, going back to Marbury and foreword to the embarrassing decision a couple of years ago finding a lack of standing in Perry v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 11:25 am
This Indiana trademark litigation, initially filed in Indiana state court, was removed to the Southern District of Indiana. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 12:17 pm by Eva Galperin and Nate Cardozo
  Related Issues: Free SpeechAnonymityInternationalSurveillance and Human RightsPrivacySecurityState-Sponsored MalwareRelated Cases: Kidane v. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 10:16 am by Gerard N. Magliocca
 Ackerman argues further that anti-humiliation is the premise behind United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 6:03 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This case asks when the arbitration "agreement" in a consumer transaction can be invalidated.The case is Soliman v. [read post]