Search for: "Givens v. Givens" Results 1361 - 1380 of 76,032
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2024, 7:38 am by Chukwuma Okoli
It approved the US approach (Hilton v Guyot) to the effect that: ‘The application of the doctrine of comity means that the recognition of foreign decisions is not out of obligation, but rather out of convenience and utility’ [para 59]. [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
See Johnson v Suffolk County Police Department, 245 AD2d 340, 341 (2d Dept 1997) . [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
The plaintiff, a funeral director and principal of the second plaintiff, the funeral home, were the subject of a broadcast which accused him of stealing jewellry and clothing given to him in his professional capacity to put on the deceased’s body. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:44 am by Eric Goldman
Given all of these variables, the Supreme Court cannot possibly provide a single test to resolve every case over government employees using social media. [read post]
3 May 2024, 6:39 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
But internal calls are growing for the police chief to step aside as University of California President Michael V. [read post]
3 May 2024, 11:33 am by David Bernstein
More sober critics, like co-blogger Eugene V. earlier today, worry about the chilling effect it will have on anti-Israel speech given that hostile environment cases sometimes rest in part on speech that would otherwise be constitutionally protected. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:49 am by Eugene Volokh
., if someone has been attacked, or had his property vandalized, or has been excluded from some university program, or given a low grade, and the question is whether the action was motivated by his being Jewish. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:38 am by Eric Goldman
Given the discrepancy between “all” and, apparently, no copying, there is a triable issue as to whether the MFB formed a subjective good faith belief that Action Care’s sale of its OvoProof was infringing, or if instead MFB were willfully blind to the fact that Action Care was not infringing in violation of 512(f). [read post]