Search for: "Matter of David H."
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,464
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2011, 9:26 am
Scarcella and David H. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 11:56 am
David H. [read post]
27 May 2011, 4:10 pm
Douglas H. [read post]
27 May 2011, 7:32 am
Ryan (Southern Methodist University) Discussant: Richard H. [read post]
25 May 2011, 8:57 am
Douglas H. [read post]
20 May 2011, 10:35 am
.]-- Posted by Neil H. [read post]
16 May 2011, 8:08 pm
[Refer: David Gallai, `Polygraph evidence in federal courts: Should it be admissible? [read post]
10 May 2011, 8:42 am
§§ 78dd-1(f)(3), 78dd-2(h)(4). [6] Id. [read post]
4 May 2011, 7:50 am
Rick Glazier berated Republicans for bringing such an amendment up, bypassing the subject matter committee. [read post]
2 May 2011, 5:29 am
The Court thus cloaks in the rhetoric of volition a policy in tension with constitutionally-pedigreed access to justice and venerable principles of federalism.This Article documents the rhetoric-reality gap and explores why it exists and why it matters. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 8:25 am
There is a post about the case on the “Entertainment Law Matters” blog. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 5:06 pm
The Press Complaints Commission, which received strong criticism for its 2009 report into phone hacking, questioned the Guardian’s news sense, stating: “[H]aving reviewed the matter, the commission could not help but conclude that the Guardian’s stories did not quite live up to the dramatic billing they were initially given. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 1:52 am
Sure, sure, if Professor Bainbridge is right, the disgorgement claim against Sokol might be meritorious, in which case Sokol would have to disgorge h is trading profits to Berkshire. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 4:48 am
Steve Bainbridge discusses a Delaware chancery suit by a Berkshire-Hathaway shareholder against former B-H executive David Sokol for profits he earned by buying Lubrizol stock ahead of his former employer. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:09 am
Michael H. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 9:53 am
Conflating these doctrines allowed legal scholars—and, for that matter, Supreme Court Justices—to elide debate over the meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions, and to reject out of hand the notion that the Old Court may have interpreted some of them correctly as a matter of text and history.Consider that quote in light of the following from an amicus brief filed by Professors Walter Dellinger and H. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 7:00 am
(H/t Althouse). [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 9:38 am
David H. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 10:41 am
See David H. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 9:02 am
(The unsigned opinion was issued by a panel composed of Circuit Judges David H. [read post]
