Search for: "Punch v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 455
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2012, 7:49 pm by Luke A. Williams
” This language covers various types of assaults (slapping, punching, grabbing, squeezing). [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:55 am by Jim Singer
Continuing its string of reversals of Federal Circuit patent decisions, the United States Supreme Court has done it again. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 7:35 pm by Josh Blackman
Calabresi now agrees with Tillman that the President is not an "Officer of the United States. [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 1:31 pm
A white collar defendant's good deeds are put under the microscope in Judge Marrero's thoughtful decision in United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 2:25 pm by Eugene Volokh
[An interesting threats case, from the Louisiana Court of Appeal] From Terrell v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 3:41 am
” The articles indicated that after being told by the principal to stop working on Saturdays, Santiago “continued to punch in and collect money . . . [read post]
14 May 2024, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
The standards for libel differ whether you are in Canada or the United States, so should one or the other decide to sue for libel, it would make a difference where they filed the lawsuit. [read post]
He reminds us that our favorite Supreme Court cases dealing with navigability -- United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 6:10 am by Eugene Volokh
For more on the remaining stun-gun bans throughout the United States, see my 2009 article; the Michigan and Wisconsin bans have been repealed, but the bans in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, the District, the Virgin Islands and several cities still remain. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:20 am by John Elwood
United States, 16-142. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 8:56 am by Steven Cohen
Mayberry et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – June 8th, 2018) involves a civil rights claim under 42 USC section 1983 and 1988. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 10:13 am
  In response to complaints that these laws are unnecessary and overbroad, and might be used to attack political or religious speech protected by the First Amendment (I’d argue the First Amendment protects Phelps from the government, but not from a punch in the nose), supporters nod and wink, suggesting without explicitly stating that these laws will only be used against Fred Phelps and his supporters. [read post]