Search for: "Matter of Robert A. G." Results 801 - 820 of 1,261
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm by David Kopel
Justice Alito cited the brief and a Natelson article in his concurring opinion. 140 S.Ct. 2246, 2268, 2270 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring); Robert G. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 4:38 am
As Marie-Andreé explains, it concerns the the design of the famous UGG® boots, which had their fashion moment in the early 21st century, and the very subject matter of IP, between idea and aesthetic appearance. * The KatChat (or was it a PatChat?) [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:51 am by Phil Dixon
The lineup in the Williams plurality included Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Breyer. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 8:13 am by Carolyn Shapiro
Indeed, after successfully nominating Warren Burger as chief justice in 1969, President Richard Nixon offered two nominees, Clement Haynsworth and G. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:08 pm by Marty Lederman
Lee, that "[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity,” at least where “[g]ranting an exemption . . . to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 4:23 pm
It is corrosive to religious belief and it’s a good thing. - Steven Weinberg Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. - Robert G. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
As with all matters of judicial interpretation, there are matters of nuance and construction. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.Issue: Whether a verifiably false factual statement about a matter of obvious importance to a company can nevertheless constitute inactionable “puffery” under the federal securities laws. [read post]