Search for: "KNIGHT NEWS, INC." Results 61 - 80 of 378
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2021, 1:07 pm by John Elwood
(relisted after the Oct. 29 conference; now held) Knight v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 7:22 am by Eugene Volokh
[A forthcoming article of mine in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty.] [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 11:07 am by INFORRM
Poland’s Senate has rejected legislation that would enforce new media ownership rules, impacting Discovery Inc. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 11:30 am by Russell Knight
R. 213 “Supreme Court Rule 213(i) imposes on each party a continuing duty to inform the opponent of new or additional information whenever such information becomes known to the party. [read post]
21 Aug 2021, 5:53 pm by Russell Knight
Mervis Industries, Inc., 839 NE 2d 524 – Ill: Supreme Court 2005 Likewise, an order is valid and enforceable until the court modifies it or an appeals court orders it stricken or modified…no matter how bad the order is. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
If social media are "the modern public square,"[127] the law may constitutionally treat them (at least as to certain of their functions) the way physical public squares can be treated.[128] The New Jersey Supreme Court's rationale for adopting a public access rule much like the one the California Supreme Court adopted in PruneYard seems largely apt here: The private [shopping mall] property owners in this case … have intentionally transformed their property into a… [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 9:57 am by Russell Knight
Therefore, the opinion isn’t telling the finder of fact anything new. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 11:12 am by Russell Knight
Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 502 N.E.2d 315, 326-27 (111. [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am by CMS
Lloyd then pointed to a number of Australian, Canadian and New Zealand cases where representative actions had been permitted absent a statutory framework, including Carnie v Esanda Finance Corporation, Canada Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. [read post]