Search for: "Doe v Great Expectations" Results 1701 - 1720 of 3,541
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
The entire syllabus may be ACCESSED HERE.One of my great frustrations in  developing this course has been what I consider to its its lack of  apparent coherence with the rest more or less conventional parts of the first year curriculum. [read post]
”  The court’s online calendar had coyly budgeted 20 minutes for each side, and while nobody ever expects the D.C. [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 1:21 pm
They argued that eBay and the later case of Winter v Nat'l Res. [read post]
And they include information the ‘unauthorized disclosure [of which] could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:55 pm by Tom Goldstein
Kenny A narrowly limited the ability of civil rights attorneys to receive an enhancement of their fee awards on the basis of great success. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 3:19 pm by familoo
And it does not give me great confidence that the solution will necessarily resolve the real issue. [read post]
12 May 2015, 10:52 am
Of course, the government can be expected to argue that a failure to use a tool does not mean the tool is useless. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 3:32 pm by Peter Margulies
As I expected, the Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3). [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm by Schachtman
In litigation, each side is expected to “cherry pick” the favorable evidence, and ignore or flyblow the contrary evidence. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 4:06 am by rainey Reitman
(Pamela Samuelson’s Commentary on UMG v Augusto and Vernor v Autodesk) Vernor v Autodesk (EFF Amicus Brief in Key Case re First Sale and Contracts, Following UMG v Augusto) MDY v Blizzard (Justia) A Mixed Ninth Circuit Ruling in MDY v Blizzard: WoW Buyers Are Not Owners – But Glider Users Are not Copyright Infringers (EFF’s Commentary on MDY v Blizzard) Capitol Records v ReDigi (Wikipedia) Court’s… [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
But in the absence of some such further argument, the institutional argument looks very much like a way of reasserting the already-discredited contention that Title VII does not cover LGBT discrimination because the members of Congress who enacted it in 1964 did not expect such coverage.Second, insofar as the leave-it-to-Congress argument rests on the expectations of Congress in 1964, it adds insult to injury. [read post]