Search for: "Still v. Justice Court"
Results 9581 - 9600
of 19,638
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2022, 4:42 pm
By James V. [read post]
15 Mar 2008, 1:03 pm
As the decline of Roe v. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 8:43 am
Baker v. [read post]
29 Sep 2022, 5:56 pm
” The Supreme Court has sought the views of the Department of Justice on this issue. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 5:05 am
[v] (So has our mean-ass host.) [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Justice Smith, writing for the majority, in Sam v. [read post]
26 May 2016, 4:34 pm
It is now just over two years since the Court of Justice of the European Union first ruled that Google was a data controller and that the principles of EU Directive 95/46/EC (‘the Data Protection Directive’), and the various national legislation that implement them, applied to its search results. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In its April 1, 2015 decision in Pittman v. [read post]
29 May 2019, 6:59 am
In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 4:31 pm
(In one of the April 25 decisions by the Supreme Court, Smith v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 7:58 am
Given some of the more recent punitive damages cases that the Court of Appeal referenced in its decision in Pate Estate v. [read post]
24 Jan 2025, 1:45 pm
I also find Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s insightful concurring opinion in Biden v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 3:11 am
At issue in the new case before the Court — Minneci, et al., v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 6:59 am
The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 9:00 am
The International Court of Justice, in its judgment of Congo v. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 6:20 am
Circuit Court even though the Bagram detainees’ case is still in a pre-trial stage. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 7:18 am
Justice Macfarlane in Serban v. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 5:32 am
I've argued that this provision is unconstitutional, but no court has yet ruled on the question.In Dred Scott v Sanford, Chief Justice Taney argued that blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 4:01 pm
This is the question which the IPKat posed last Friday, on learning that Case C-661/13 Astellas Pharma Inc. v Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of some questions relating to the so-called Bolar exemption, which spares some sorts of use of someone else's patent for experimental purposes from being a patent infringement. [read post]
19 May 2022, 2:32 pm
We still need comprehensive legislative reform to address the harms of this dangerous law.In part, DOJ’s policy change is forced by the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Van Buren v. [read post]
