Search for: "In re: Justice v."
Results 9841 - 9860
of 17,879
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2014, 5:50 am
”); Oliver v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:48 am
They’re allowed. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:19 am
In Plumhoff v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 9:01 pm
Last year, when the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 9:26 am
Even if you solve the authenticity and and copyright problems (and we’re nowhere near doing that), what are we going to do about the Supreme Court? [read post]
27 May 2014, 9:26 am
Even if you solve the authenticity and and copyright problems (and we’re nowhere near doing that), what are we going to do about the Supreme Court? [read post]
27 May 2014, 7:46 am
If you’re one of those waiting for Hobby Lobby, Bond, UARG (the greenhouse gas case), or McCullen v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 5:19 am
“When they’re changing the wording of opinions, they’re basically rewriting the law. [read post]
27 May 2014, 3:33 am
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Harris [2014] EWHC 1568 is a judgment of Mr Justice Barling (the president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, when he’s not hearing IP cases), the next chapter in the Newzbin piracy saga.Background – Newzbin and the first ever UK blocking injunctionAnyone with an interest in online copyright infringement and blocking injunctions (one of this Kat’s favourite topics) will remember Newzbin as a service which helped its… [read post]
27 May 2014, 12:47 am
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and other companies v Harris and others [2014] EWHC 1568 (Ch), a Chancery Division for England and Wales decision of Mr Justice Barling a couple of weeks ago, is the latest (will it be the last?) [read post]
23 May 2014, 1:39 pm
” O’Neill v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:37 am
But many of Lawfare’s readers will be familiar with similar situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, Syria, Colombia, Haiti and elsewhere.For human rights groups seeking to end impunity, such places force difficult choices between seeking justice for past atrocities and building up political authority for dealing with current threats. [read post]
22 May 2014, 1:02 pm
State v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 11:45 am
Mandatory retirement provisions within partnership agreements do not violate labour laws or human rights, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today in McCormick v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:44 am
We all know Justice Thomas’ answer – but he is an extremist on the issue. [read post]
22 May 2014, 6:12 am
As the petition puts it (with alterations and footnotes omitted): This petition asks the Court to confirm that the Sixth Amendment as-applied doctrine of reasonableness review set forth in [Justice Scalia's] concurrence in Rita v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 4:00 am
Policy Arguments about Judicial Fundraising Judges play an indispensible role in the administration of justice. [read post]
21 May 2014, 1:00 pm
I am writing, of course, about National Federation of Businesses v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:02 am
” Anderson v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 5:00 am
At the re-hearing the Chief Justice said that in order to decide that First Amendment rights were being violated under the COOL laws, the Court would “have to strike down at least half a dozen statutes on the books since the 1930s,” according to Politico. [read post]
