Search for: "Majors v. Smith"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2011, 8:22 am
In 1991, the firm split and Farr joined Paul Smith and Richard Taranto to form Klein, Farr, Smith & Taranto. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 8:13 am
As always, these summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to present. [read post]
15 May 2013, 9:56 am
Smith, 647 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2011)), suffer from alcoholism during trial (People v. [read post]
21 Oct 2006, 8:40 pm
Dretke & Smith v. [read post]
31 Jan 2025, 5:24 pm
WWE v. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 9:47 am
Smith v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 6:08 am
Today, in Borough of Duryea v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 2:08 pm
” When Roberts moves on to announce that Justice Sonia Sotomayor will have the first opinion of the day, in Smith v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm
The Smith case itself was the paradigm. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 3:55 am
Randy Smith, accused the panel's majority of writing new law saying "We have never held that an actress' performance could be copyrightable" but the majority held that "An actor's performance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces 'some minimal degree of creativity ... no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be". [read post]
10 Dec 2020, 7:44 am
The most interesting thing to me is that we are constantly told how textualist the new conservative majority is going to be. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 9:59 am
Judge Smith concurred in part, agreeing with the majority on the standing issue and the recusal issue, and dissented in part, on the constitutional merits. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm
Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Hughes v. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 11:06 pm
("Panorama"), a purveyor of karaoke discs, resembles the majority of these participants. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 3:00 am
The Delaware Court of Chancery – in Narayanan v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 7:10 am
Smith & Nephew (Fed. [read post]
1 May 2012, 6:03 am
., V. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 1:19 pm
Because it seems judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals are getting into the game.A reader dug up a case from this summer involving whether or not the state met the burden of proof necessary to show that a pot smoker “possessed” a blunt he wasn’t physically holding at the time.The court ruled that he did, and analogized the situation to a Cheech and Chong movie.I’m not sure if it was the decision or the dated reference which enraged the other side, but the dissenting judge… [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 12:00 pm
Carson v. [read post]
