Search for: "People v. House" Results 7041 - 7060 of 12,872
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2011, 1:41 pm by WIMS
Access the statement from House Republican leaders (click here). [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
We have defined the term “exclusively” as used in this context “to connote ‘principal’ or ‘primary,’ such that purposes and uses merely ‘auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose’ and use will not defeat the exemption’” (Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg, 79 NY2d 244, 249 [1992], quoting Matter of Association of Bar of City of N.Y. v Lewisohn, 34 NY2d 143, 153 [1974]).… [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:58 pm by Florian Mueller
However, I want to make a point here that I believe the decision makers in the White House and the Department of Justice (and maybe even the Supreme Court) might consider:With all that is going on in connection with software patents, this is the worst time one could pick for destabilizing the software copyright system. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 10:55 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Many advertisers have content studios in-house. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
Jean Schmidt, one of the bill’s sponsors, put it, “We recognize that people that are of color, people that have less means, tend to end up on death row more so than people with means or higher education. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 8:50 am by Ilya Somin
And it would almost certainly pass muster under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal Constitution in Kelo v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 3:30 am by INFORRM
The Minority Thought blog has a piece under the title “Should we really have to force newspapers to stop smearing innocent people” dealing with the suggestion that Parliament might be asked to ban the media from identifying people arrested by police in criminal investigations until after they have been charged. [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 8:10 am by Richard Hunt
We can start with a result that seems startling, the case of the emotional support parrots.(4) United States v. [read post]