Search for: "Fine v. Fine"
Results 8761 - 8780
of 16,008
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2014, 7:54 am
In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 6:59 am
If this is so, maybe some form of Bivens all by itself is just fine; revamping the FTCA, as suggested above, might not even be necessary. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 6:26 am
Hobby Lobby Part IV -- The myth of underinclusivenessHobby Lobby Part V -- Whose Religious Exercise? [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 4:56 am
See Apple, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 8:58 pm
Bartlow v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
See Gabor, Deaccessioning Fine Art Works, 36 UCLA L. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
See Gabor, Deaccessioning Fine Art Works, 36 UCLA L. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 10:46 am
See Gabor, Deaccessioning Fine Art Works, 36 UCLA L. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 4:08 am
Merpel thinks this litigation was a waste of time: the two parties could have fought it out, using their finely honed martial skills, with the winner getting to "keep" the mark. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm
California law allows that, and that seems just fine to me. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 1:40 pm
Fine; it has. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 9:00 am
A dentist was sued for malpractice following a root canal procedure in Holder v Schwarcz. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:58 am
Touby v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:40 am
There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case [as many a fine counsel will happily testify]. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:57 am
The two Supreme Court cases that comprise the bedrock of legal precedent for the third-party doctrine—Smith v Maryland and United States v Miller—do not apply to cell site location data, the court found: We agree with the defendant…that the nature of cellular telephone technology and CSLI and the character of cellular telephone use in our current society render the third-party doctrine of Miller and Smith inapposite; the digital age has altered dramatically the… [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 4:06 pm
See., e.g., Shakespeare Foundation, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 2:35 pm
The case in question is RS v SS [2013] EWHC B33 (Fam) and you can read more about it on the Suesspicious Minds blog if you don’t have a Times subscription. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 1:51 pm
In Virgin [Enterprises Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 8:25 am
This is true even live in a community where people often fail to shovel: in the case of Waldick v Malcolm the Supreme Court of Canada also established that custom is not a defence. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 8:12 am
In TWA v. [read post]
