Search for: "State v. Robins" Results 81 - 100 of 1,415
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2022, 8:25 am by Edward Foley
Known as Round-Robin Voting, because it resembles a round-robin sports tournament in which each competitor faces one-on-one against every other competitor, this version of ranked-choice voting would prevent election denialists from winning office whenever they are not the candidate most preferred by a majority of all the voters in the electorate. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Several Election Deniers Backed by Trump Prevail in Hotly Contested Primaries MSN – Hannah Knowles (Washington Post) | Published: 8/3/2022 Several election deniers backed by former President Trump prevailed in closely watched primaries on August 2, as a nationwide battle over the future of the GOP played out in state and federal races across five states. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am by Brian Cordery (Bristows)
The law in this regard was summarised by Arnold J in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat) at [103]: “[103] As Kitchin LJ and Sir Robin Jacob said in their joint judgment in Gedeon  Richter plc v Bayer Pharma AG[2012] EWCA Civ 235, [2013] Bus LR D17 at [61], ‘it is trite law that… the older (from the priority date of a patent under attack) a piece of prior art said to render a patent obvious, the harder it is to show… [read post]
10 Jul 2022, 3:26 pm by Stuart Kaplow
If there is any question about the legal conclusions in this post, a very similar California statute enacted as Assembly Bill 979 was found unconstitutional earlier this year for the same equal protection flaw, in Robin Crest, et al. v. [read post]
31 May 2022, 2:44 pm by Eugene Volokh
Robins (1980), we rejected the argument that the owner of a shopping mall had "a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others. [read post]
22 May 2022, 9:41 am by Eugene Volokh
Rumsfeld discussed the government interest in the opening of Part III of the opinion, which was necessary given that the expressive conduct section applied United States v. [read post]