Search for: "People v. Good (1990)" Results 781 - 800 of 1,303
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2013, 1:35 am by David Kopel
Should the Browns prevail in the 10th Circuit, the case seems a good candidate for the Supreme Court. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 9:02 am by Eugene Volokh
(This issue came up in several lower court cases in the 1990s.) [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 11:30 am by Terry Hart
… The public good fully coincides…with the claims of individuals. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 7:41 pm
My article, "Transnational Corporations' Outward Expression of Inward Self-Constitution:  The Enforcement of Human Rights by Apple, Inc." has just been published and will appear in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 20(2):805-879 (2013). [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 4:00 am by Lyonette Louis-Jacques
People wanted “really good beer. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 9:03 am by David Post
”  I think it actually matters a good deal — see here and here if you’re interested in my reasons for thinking so. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:46 am by Jane Chong
Over the last month, on our New Republic: Security States newsfeed, we rolled out a series designed to explain why fairly allocating the costs of software deficiencies between software makers and users is so critical to addressing the growing problem of vulnerability-ridden code—and how such a regime will require questioning some of our deep-seated beliefs about the very nature of software security. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Ron Coleman
 Just watch out when one of us starts blogging about dead people. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 12:19 am by Ben Reeve-Lewis
Government realised this by the mid-1990s so with the introduction of the Housing Act 1996 (Feb 28th 1997) the section 20 notice was ditched and the default tenancy became the AST. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 11:14 am by Larry Catá Backer
Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) (Commerce power extended to prohibiting commerce in certain goods, in this case shipping Paraguayan lottery tickets across state lines);  Swift and Company v. [read post]