Search for: "State v. Browning" Results 7821 - 7840 of 8,739
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
The American University Law Review is proud to present its annual Federal Circuit symposium, Panel 2: TrademarksFirst Amendment Freedom of Speech and Trademarks: What Is, and What Should Be, the Relationship Between the Two? [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 11:01 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 10, 11 P.3d 277 (stating that “the nature of a default judgment and the equitable nature of rule 60 provide further limits” on a court’s discretion). [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 12:00 pm by Terri Nappier
For example, making sure that they were electing school board members who were going to participate in mass resistance to the Supreme Court’s ruling of Brown v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 9:00 pm by John Dean
” Following this line of reasoning, the High Court later stated in U.S. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 5:50 am by John Dean
” Following this line of reasoning, the High Court later stated in U.S. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
” Likewise, Justice Thomas filed an originalist dissent from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion invalidating a state law requiring parental consent for minors to purchase violent video games in Brown v. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
  After this, the Ninth Circuit quickly lifted its stay on Judge Walker’s order, and Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris instructed all county clerks to ignore Proposition 8 and issue same-sex marriage licenses. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
In this regard, it bears noting that some of the Supreme Court’s most celebrated (and legally correct) decisions (such as Brown v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 6:25 am by Adam Klasfeld
A close reading of the lead opinion, concurrences, and dissents in Trump v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 4:25 am by Peter J. Sluka
Most importantly, Delaware law reverses the burden of proof: the “burden is on the fiduciary to show that he or she did not seize a corporate opportunity” (Grove v Brown, CV 6793-VCG [Del Ch Aug. 8, 2013]). [read post]