Search for: "People v. Givens" Results 1281 - 1300 of 17,538
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2010, 9:27 pm by Simon Gibbs
The first point to make is that it is difficult to engage in discussions with people who are not willing to provide their names. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 8:09 am by Nassiri Law
Most people living in Los Angeles are familiar with Uber and how the company and its competitors operate. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Indeed, it has happened before.In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 3:55 am by Heather K. Gerken
Two days ago, I began describing a forthcoming paper of mine offering a new take on Windsor v. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 2:25 pm by Eric Goldman
So the court said that it didn’t harm the defendants to enjoin them given their abandonment (further complicated by the fact that the parties had tangled in court previously). [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 8:48 am by MBettman
It is not the job of teachers (notwithstanding the mandatory abuse reporting requirements) to dig up evidence to prosecute people. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 6:34 am
Many people will buy one, or the other, but not both. [read post]
27 May 2024, 8:58 pm
  (For example, an expert could form an opinion as to public attitudes on a given issue on the basis of statements by people in a survey, whether or not those statements would otherwise be admissible.) [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 4:34 pm by INFORRM
Mr Spicer was instead fined £1,000, ordered to pay £500 in costs, and given nine penalty points. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 7:15 am by MICHAEL ETIENNE, MATRIX
Judgment in the case of R (Steinfeld & Anor) v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC 32 is here. [read post]
21 Apr 2025, 9:02 am by Eric Goldman
Extensive social media use also has been linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness among young people. [read post]
26 May 2018, 9:28 am by Sandy Levinson
 It is, many people would argue, correctly, beside the point if, say, a majority in a given jurisdiction wish to continue discriminating on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. [read post]