Search for: "Deal v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 29,181
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2024, 6:54 am by Jonathan H. Adler
In his book, Tatel wrote that Ginsburg told him about the behind-the-scenes dealings in a 2009 case, known as Northwest Austin v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Rapid innovation in AI has created a great deal of uncertainty regarding whether popular AI platforms infringe copyright. [read post]
27 May 2024, 10:23 am by John Floyd
   On February 15, 2024, the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals in Nguyen v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 2:12 pm
In addition, from the religious point of view, it is likely that Israel will continue to view the criticism as just another episode in millennia old patterns of dealing with a substantially despised (and sometimes feared) population  Whatever the realities, that produces a singularly low level of trust in whatever assurances or performances of (especially critical) States with long histories of unfortunate relations with "their" Jews. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:49 am by John Elwood
Heller and [New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.] [read post]
24 May 2024, 1:49 am by Tessa Shepperson
  If this is, as expected, a Labour government, it is to be hoped that they deal with this in a way that will not further decentivise landlords and prompt more to sell up and leave the sector. [read post]
23 May 2024, 2:52 pm by John Hempill and Karl Buhler
This is an issue that actually dates back to the seminal 2005 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 10:23 am by David Luban
Under the ICC’s founding principle of complementarity, a case is “inadmissible” if it is being “investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution” (Rome Statute art. 17(1)(a)). [read post]
21 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
The stakes are high, because affected institutions and individuals that are deemed to render fiduciary advice will be subject to the highest duties of loyalty and care under U.S. law and strict prohibitions against specified transactions that present conflict of interest potential when dealing with ERISA-covered plans and IRAs. [read post]