Search for: "Line v. Line" Results 701 - 720 of 45,531
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Mar 2013, 9:27 am by constitutional lawblogger
Debuting on line today is volume 37:1 of the NYU Review of Law & Social Change, a symposium issue dedicated to Perry v. [read post]
31 Oct 2020, 4:15 am by Sue Ghosh Stricklett
In what many regard as the intellectual property case of the century, the United States Supreme Court has—on October 7, 2020—presided over oral arguments in Google v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 11:56 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
Following up on yesterday's post about the admissibility of prior conivctions for sex crimes for impeachment purposes, I give you another in a long line of ridiculous impeachment cases from the great state of Minnesota: State v. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 4:00 pm by Gerry W. Beyer
These two aspects can work in correlation with one another, but make sure your portfolio is in line with your mission. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 5:56 am by David Yellen
As California considers whether to require 15 credit hours of experiential learning prior to admission to the bar, the executive committee of the AALS Section of Clinical Legal Education and the AALS’s Deans Steering Committee have lined up on opposite... [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 11:31 am by Micah Buchdahl
There were hot-button issues sitting on my desk, and the equally red-hot debate over making the first substantial changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct related to law firm marketing since Bates v Arizona in 1977. [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 11:31 am by Micah Buchdahl
There were hot-button issues sitting on my desk, and the equally red-hot debate over making the first substantial changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct related to law firm marketing since Bates v Arizona in 1977. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 8:28 am by Daily Record Staff
Administrative law — Line of duty disability — Pre-existing condition We are asked to determine whether the hearing examiner’s decision to deny line-of-duty benefits because the appellee’s disability was due to a pre-existing condition and not a work-related injury was supported by substantial evidence in the record and therefore reasonable. [read post]