Search for: "People v. Harris" Results 941 - 960 of 2,451
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2017, 5:38 am by Mitra Sharafi
(Our e-reserve people do a great job streaming films through the course site upon request.)Sally Hadden: Judgment at Nuremburg, Andersonville TrialDirk Hartog: In my 20th century legal thought class, I use Billy Wilder's The Fortune Cookieand Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder, during weeks on the legal profession. [read post]
13 Aug 2017, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Prince Harry v Mail Online On 4 March 2017, the Mail Online published an article headlined, “Time to cool off! [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:10 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Jennifer Rothman: TMs are part of this; also, cross subsidization of smaller films both by studios and by directors/etc. other people who fund what they want to do w/the bigger films.A: yes on TMs; maybe he needs a better term than adaptation. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 7:43 am by Rebecca Tushnet
There are pockets that demand different approaches.Jake Linford: Error costs v. administrative costs. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 11:50 am by Wolfgang Demino
See image of Trustee's Deed recorded in the Harris County Clerk's Office below: FIRST THE DUNNING, THEN THE DEED Section 1692e(5) prohibits threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken, while  Section 1692e(2) prohibits falsely representing . . . the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:24 am by Colby Pastre
The purpose of imposing this 3-cents-an-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax is to allow people to get their kids educated and move them out of poverty into taxpaying citizens.[4] Consistent with this revenue-centric approach, diet beverages were included in the tax to try to maximize its revenue potential, despite not contributing to caloric intake. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 3:51 am by SHG
**The bill includes the following: (6) In Bearden v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 7:46 am by Eric Goldman
Facebook defeats a lawsuit over New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act because its Terms of Service has a California choice-of-law provision and California’s consumer law is as robust as New Jersey’s. * Harris v. [read post]