Search for: "Affordable Express Corp." Results 101 - 120 of 631
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Nov 2020, 12:02 pm by Michael Lowe
  As the Texas Supreme Court explains:  “… [i]nfluence is not undue unless the free agency of the testator was destroyed and a testament produced that expresses the will of the one exerting the influence. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 10:20 am by Phil Dixon
§§ 15A-1222 and 1223 prohibit the trial court from expressing opinions on the evidence to the jury. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 11:46 am
To answer both Xi Jinping chose a quite pointed venue to deliver a more full-throated defense of Chinese policy, and more importantly of the political ideology and its expression on the ground in Xinjiang  (习近平出席第三次中央新疆工作座谈会并发表重要讲话 [Xi Jinping attended the third Central Xinjiang Work Symposium and delivered an important… [read post]
First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978), accorded deference to the OCC with respect to the very statutory provision (Section 85 of the National Bank Act) at issue under the Proposed Rule. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 7:49 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
References in definitions of the tort of battery to “injury”, or to contact being “unlawful” or “harmful or offensive” are different ways of expressing the idea that not every physical contact constitutes a battery. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 3:28 pm by Eugene Volokh
This is so because of the broad constitutional protection afforded to speech…. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 7:14 am by James Williams
Copyright specifically protects the fixed, tangible medium of expression in a work of authorship against someone else copying it. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 8:51 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 65, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983). [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 7:42 am by Marty Lederman
  At the end of the post I’ll also comment on a couple of other important aspects of the McGahn case, namely, (i) that even if the House has standing to sue, it’s still far from certain whether McGahn will ever provide significant testimony to the Judiciary Committee; and (ii) that the panel opinion itself demonstrates that DOJ’s substantive argument—that close presidential aides have absolute “testimonial immunity” from congressional process even after… [read post]
29 May 2020, 9:04 am by Eric Goldman
Knowing that, most agencies won’t devote resources in light of the EO’s Section 230 interpretation because they can’t afford to waste their resources. [read post]
28 May 2020, 5:29 am by Schachtman
”[17] The Reporter charitably noted that the problem could be in the infelicitous expression of some courts that short-circuit their analyses by saying “I see the problems, but they go to the weight of the evidence. [read post]
11 May 2020, 8:07 am by Dan Maurer
He also expressed interest in having the military investigate and potentially charge an officer after he testified in the impeachment hearing (in the end, he was only “fired”). [read post]