Search for: "DOE v. Smith" Results 1481 - 1500 of 6,566
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2025, 2:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Kakushadze v Skin Cancer & Aesthetic Surgery, P.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 31149(U) April 3, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 500196/2023 Judge: Ingrid Joseph seems to be (the decision does not discuss representation of plaintiff) the kind of issues that arise in pro-se cases. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm by Jim Oleske
Smith, a landmark 1990 decision holding that the free exercise clause does not provide a right to religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws, or (2) sharply limit the impact of Smith by turning a caveat the Smith majority used to distinguish a prior case — the “mechanism for individualized exemptions” reading of Sherbert v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 12:08 pm by Eric Goldman
2016 has been a tough year for Section 230 jurisprudence, and the nadir (so far) was the appellate court ruling in Hassell v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 10:47 am by Glenn R. Reiser
Smith, 160 N.J. 383, 397 (1999) (“Lawson“), valuation of a closely-held business is not an exact science. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:11 am by Dale Carpenter
Of course, this analysis does not answer all questions on the margins. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 7:33 am by Timothy J. Nagle
Following the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 7:00 pm by Scott McKeown
Smith & Nephew to assess how best to remedy a potential Appointments Clause violation. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 8:23 am by Kalvis Golde
Smith,” a 1990 decision holding that a neutral and generally applicable government regulation that affects members of a specific religion does not violate the free exercise clause. [read post]