Search for: "Thomas v. The Law Office of J. T. Thomas" Results 121 - 140 of 639
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2022, 3:08 pm by Eugene Volokh
FEC (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (observing that some opponents to Proposition 8 [California's referendum on "same-sex marriage"] created websites with maps showing the l [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 5:36 pm by INFORRM
The Evan Law blog has a summary of the recent decision Allen v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 6:49 am by Roger Parloff
But Nichols ruled that that the law doesn’t cover such conduct. [read post]
8 Mar 2022, 4:00 am by SHG
BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 12:24 am by INFORRM
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia On 18 February 2022, judgement was given in favour of the claimants in the defamation claim Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 12) [2022] FCA 110. [read post]
11 Feb 2022, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
But they surged during Trump’s time in office and in its aftermath. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 4:01 pm by INFORRM
Judgement was handed down by Nicklin J in Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) on 20 December 2021. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 8:03 am by Michael Stern
The PRA states that “[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 8:26 pm by David Kopel
  Right-to-carry laws and violent crime The most-cited study supporting New York's very restrictive law is John J. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 12:26 am by David Kopel
City of Chicago (2010, making Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments), there weren't a lot cases on the issue. [read post]
24 Oct 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
On 18 October 2021 there was a statement in open court in the case of Zarghune v Channel 5 Broadcasting before Collins Rice J. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 7:22 am by Eugene Volokh
I don't know whether these rules are sound in essentially treating political affiliation the same as religious affiliation is treated under many more antidiscrimination laws and political speech as religious speech. [read post]