Search for: "Matter of J.L."
Results 81 - 100
of 229
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2018, 5:55 am
A Justice of this Court [Cohalan, J.l agreed and granted that motion on June 11 2007. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 3:52 am
J.L. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 2:57 pm
An example of a spanking falling outside the parental priviledge occurred in J.L. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2006, 4:07 am
Posner, Shaming White Collar Criminals: A Proposal for Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 42 J.L. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 9:37 am
J.L. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:30 am
These include, inter alia, the tension between the government’s right to speak and the potential First Amendment rights of the government employees who carry the government’s message[1]; the Establishment Clause limitations on the government’s religious speech[2]; the way in which government speech may create the very racial and other inequalities that are the concern of the Equal Protection clause[3]; and the difficult conflict between the government’s right to articulate… [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 8:57 am
Austin, J.L (J.O. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 6:56 pm
Much of this trend tracks a long-standing (and largely outdated) version of legal positivism – espoused by Thomas Hobbes and J.L. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 11:03 pm
J.L. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 2:19 pm
J.L. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 10:29 am
J.L., 410 N.J. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 10:50 am
When Winning Matters Most, Call MyPhillyLawyer. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 4:36 pm
J.L. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 10:05 am
Walsh & J.L. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:07 pm
J.L. [read post]
1 Aug 2007, 7:21 pm
J.L. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 2:19 pm
During this same time period, software claims continued to be seen as non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and what emerged against this backdrop of no patents for software was Microsoft, as a monopolist. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 1:51 pm
J.L. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 10:33 am
TRANSPORTES J.L. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 6:14 am
Under the Doe decision, one may need to consider whether that federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. [read post]
