Search for: "Hudson v. US Government" Results 141 - 160 of 604
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2012, 11:11 pm by David Zaring
Hudson, 178 F.3d 649, 674 (3d Cir.1999) (“[T]he categorical approach has only been used in real property cases. [read post]
28 May 2020, 1:27 pm by Adam Schwartz
First, the Maine law regulates commercial speech, which the Supreme Court has described as “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience,” in an opinion called Central Hudson Gas v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 12:35 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Without this, § 2(a) cannot satisfy the Central Hudson test. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 11:45 am
Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Hudson v Michigan (2006) and Herring v United States (2009) have sparked a new debate over the efficacy of exclusionary remedy, and once again drawn its continued viability as a constitutional mandate into question. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 10:04 am by Ben Sperry
Bonta, the First Amendment, and KOSA It’s Only Gonna Get Harder for the Government In Bonta, much as in the Arkansas federal district court in NetChoice v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Turning to the arguments remaining before us, "[t]he scope of this Court's review of a condemnor's EDPL 204 determination is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) the condemnor* had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use" (Matter of Hudson Val. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Turning to the arguments remaining before us, "[t]he scope of this Court's review of a condemnor's EDPL 204 determination is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) the condemnor* had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use" (Matter of Hudson Val. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 1:48 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Hargis—because the TTAB’s determination could in some circumstances be used to stop the mark’s use, perhaps that directly advances the government’s interest. [read post]