Search for: "Jones v. Federal Communications Commission"
Results 81 - 100
of 267
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2019, 6:00 am
Apart from his ACA decisions, in his dissent in Obergefell v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 2:42 pm
Barton v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
In this case, the justices must determine whether the Hobbs Act required a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 5:59 am
The case, one of statutory interpretation, asks whether the Hobbs Act required the district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [read post]
17 Mar 2019, 5:35 pm
This concerned the ruling in the case of 07188-18 Jones v Mail Online, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock (2018). [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
This paper presents a survey of federal and state court decisions on these two questions, hoping to offer some guidance to practitioners. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
She has authored and co-authored numerous books including the How to Understand Statutes and Regulations, Annotated Federal Interpretation Act, The Practical Guide to Canadian Legal Research, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of Canada, and Updating Statutes and Regulations for all Canadian Jurisdictions. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
Federalism and federalization on the fintech frontier. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 9:08 am
United States, 17-6054, Jones v. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 2:13 pm
Carlton & Harris Chiropractic (March 25): Whether the Hobbs Act, a federal law that provides a mechanism for courts to review some agency orders, requires a federal district court to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Dutra Group v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 1:36 pm
Jones and Jon B. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 8:06 am
(relisted after the May 17 conference; rescheduled before the March 2, March 16, March 23, March 29, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 10, May 24, May 31, June 7, June 14, June 21, September 24, October 5, October 12, October 26, November 2, November 9, November 16, November 30, December 7 and January 4 conferences) Jones v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 18-107, raises the related question of whether that prohibition includes a person’s gender identity so as to protect people from discrimination based on their transgender status. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 9:19 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 4:01 am
Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of “junk faxes” to sue the senders for damages; in this post, Bell considers “whether the Hobbs Act applies at all. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 8:46 am
In Hurst v. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 11:21 am
Issues: (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission unlawfully reclassified broadband internet-access service as a “telecommunications service” under 47 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Oct 2018, 4:59 pm
Stanford’s Cyberlaw Blog has highlighted the ongoing debate in the United States around net neutrality laws, cantered around amendments proposed by the Federal Communications Commission. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 7:04 am
On Friday, the Supreme Court granted review in the twice-relisted Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 11:28 am
The case presents a question about litigants’ ability to challenge in district court Federal Communications Commission orders construing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because of a provision known as the Hobbs Act – this one, not the one you’re thinking about. [read post]
