Search for: "Does I through Doe III"
Results 101 - 120
of 6,891
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2024, 2:56 pm
The Code does not include a global definition of “trade or business” that applies in all circumstances. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
The Executive Order does not purport to restrict all transactions within its ambit, nor does it establish a mandatory data localization regime. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm
I polled members this week. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 9:47 am
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts are limited to deciding actual “Cases” and “Controversies. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 4:47 am
Such requirements could include (i) notice and policy obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act, (ii) notice requirements for GPS tracking in New Jersey, (iii) potential consent requirements for audio recording, and (iv) consent requirements for collection of biometrics. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 12:25 pm
By attempting to recapture this mostly "lost history of judicial restraint," I argue that during America’s first century, through the “discussions” in legal treatises and the “adjudications” in all the country’s apex supreme courts, all pointing overwhelmingly and uniformly in the direction of restraint, the Constitution’s standard of review, and the very meaning of "the judicial power" in Article III, appears… [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
§ 9-28.900(A)(3)(a)(iii). [7] Id. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 7:38 am
Among other things, the Task Force will produce a comprehensive report that will include: (i) guiding principles; (ii) forward-looking recommendations; and (iii) bipartisan policy proposals. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 10:30 pm
The Genocide Convention contains the duty to prevent genocide (Article I), and prohibits complicity in genocide (Article III(e)). [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
I want to start by thanking PLI for organizing this event and making it available for free to all this year. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm
By attempting to recapture this mostly "lost history of judicial restraint," I argue that during America’s first century, through the “discussions” in legal treatises and the “adjudications” in all the country’s apex supreme courts, all pointing overwhelmingly and uniformly in the direction of restraint, the Constitution’s standard of review, and the very meaning of "the judicial power" in Article III, appears… [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 10:58 am
I make three key claims. . . [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 5:50 am
This definition does not correspond to the meaning of “gross human rights violations” under international law. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 9:35 am
In Part III, I explore the broader legal, political, and social contexts. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 7:28 pm
That does not suggest laissez faire in the style of Milton Friedman--it does suggest that public policy creates guard rails and expectations but does not drive micro-decision making. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:58 am
[The Court's decision in this case is likely to make a mess of standing doctrine for a long time] Several months ago, I published several posts here on the VC arguing that the Court should have dismissed Lorie Smith's challenge to Colorado's anti-discrimination law for lack of Article III standing. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 6:56 pm
Consistent with CIRCIA, the proposed regulatory text of the Covered Entity definition includes that entities must be “in a critical infrastructure sector,” but the text does not define this term or describe how to determine which entities are within those sectors. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 3:39 pm
Yet, it does not justify an interpretation of the Constitution that tolerates let alone sustains corporate infringement of individual rights and encroachment on governmental powers. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 5:03 am
" One thing it does add is a clear statement that any interpretation must "take into account the evolutionary nature of the digital technologies," which probably would have been taken into account anyway, but I guess you never know for sure. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 5:03 am
" One thing it does add is a clear statement that any interpretation must "take into account the evolutionary nature of the digital technologies," which probably would have been taken into account anyway, but I guess you never know for sure. [read post]
