Search for: "Majors v. Smith" Results 1061 - 1080 of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
Smith, 2004 SCC 14, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 385 … In this case, the majority of the Court of Appeal erred at the first stage of the test because the case is clearly not moot. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 3:30 am by Allison Brownell Tirres
Elizabeth Sepper and Deborah Dinner make a major corrective in their excellent article, Sex in Public. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 8:00 pm by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch International harmonization has always been seen as a major purpose of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 10:46 am by Dennis Crouch
Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U.S. 293, 311-12 (1884); Smith v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Jarkesy to go much further, as it has done in conjuring new constitutional principles, such as the major questions doctrine in West Virginia v. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 5:01 am by Jacob Schulz
That opinion contains some law potentially relevant to the present situation: it spells out the scope of the statute and unambiguously affirms its constitutionality, in a decision cited in a major later seditious conspiracy case. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [read post]
29 Jul 2009, 7:00 am
  This whole notion was turned on its head in 2006 when Justice Ginsberg wrote the majority opinion in Marshall v. [read post]