Search for: "People v Duhs"
Results 81 - 100
of 103
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
Because it's almost inevitable - rummage through enough documents and emails of enough people (a quarter million or so will do) and eventually you're very likely to discover somebody saying, or doing, or proposing something dumb. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 6:29 am
” “As one of my grandchildren might say, well DUH! [read post]
17 May 2023, 4:54 am
Well, duh. [read post]
22 May 2018, 5:30 pm
In the case of Johns v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 5:18 am
But Trump v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 3:51 pm
” id, citing State v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 4:32 am
Now for a question from the other side: Well, duh. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:16 am
Duh. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 1:59 pm
v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
(We ask you to suppress your inclination to say “duh” at this point.) [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 4:59 pm
Um . . . duh? [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 7:30 am
") Remember Ricci v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 10:19 pm
See Hunter v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 2:28 pm
It is by statute and law in Connecticut (State v. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 6:17 am
v=tYrue4oXCbo Music Stuff R.I.P. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 8:14 am
(Duh). [read post]
31 Dec 2008, 10:05 pm
There will be rapid adoption of new ethics rules and issuances of ethics opinions related to metadata responsibilities in at least 50% of North American jurisdictions by year-end (I hope - what the heck are the states with zero guidance waiting for - get a clue people and guide your practitioners!) [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
It invites juries to decide cases on improper bases – that all these people wouldn’t be suing unless something was wrong. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 6:46 am
Schumer is making the case that SS is non-empathetic (even when the parties in question are the survivors of people killed in a plane crash) and, a fortiori, impartial.Next: Washington v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 2:16 pm
They simply count up how many of the 26 people said various things. [read post]
