Search for: "People v. Good (1990)" Results 101 - 120 of 1,294
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2016, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
” Otherwise, there would never be an occasion to test whether an old precedent remains good law.Where is the line between permissible test legislation and impermissible defiance of existing precedent for no other reason than harassment of people who want to exercise their rights? [read post]
9 Nov 2008, 4:52 am
Tex. 1990).[2] The court also referenced the following cases in support of this same proposition: Parfums Givenchy Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 12:03 am by Jeff Gamso
I have spent a lot of time in the last week speaking with people who had the good sense not to go to law school. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 9:10 am by David
by David Hricik Over on the main page, Dennis has done a good job laying out the court’s “analysis” in Versata v. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 2:29 am
American exceptionalism is not always a good thing [read post]
12 Jun 2010, 4:07 pm by Eugene Volokh
Then in 1990, the Court changed course: In Employment Division v. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 11:50 am by Eugene Volokh
Smith (1990), which held that there is generally no right to religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws, and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 2:05 pm by INFORRM
In Murphy v IRTC Barrington J gave two examples of the common good: the case concerned a ban on religious advertising in section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 (also here), and Barrington J (at [30]) held that the ban in section 10(3) could be justified either to prevent public unrest, or to ensure that, in matters of sensitivity, rich people “should not be able to buy access to the airwaves to the detriment of their poorer… [read post]
18 Jul 2020, 2:51 am by Thalia Kruger
Written by Jonathan Fitchen, University of Aberdeen Introduction The EEO Regulation (805/2004) was mooted in the mid-1990’s to combat perceived failings of the Brussels Convention that were feared to obstruct or prevent ‘good’ judgment creditors from enforcing ‘uncontested’ (i.e. undisputable) debts as cross-border debt judgments within what is now the EU. [read post]