Search for: "People v. Board" Results 161 - 180 of 8,618
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2024, 8:44 am by Gamble Hayden
This noted, I still welcome opportunities to engage in dialogue with people who do not always look or think like me! [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
” [17] Boorstin brought Katz on board. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm by USPTO
We have issued guidance for practitioners using AI when practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
On the other hand, SL contended that the only reason she had not reported the accident to the proper people at the proper time was that she was embarrassed, as the Health, Safety and Training Manager, to have been involved in such an accident. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
On the other hand, SL contended that the only reason she had not reported the accident to the proper people at the proper time was that she was embarrassed, as the Health, Safety and Training Manager, to have been involved in such an accident. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 7:18 am by GSU Law Student
(n.d.). https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/justice-thurgood-marshall-profile-brown-v-board Brown v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
On 2 February 2024, there was a trial on preliminary issues in the case of Jeffrey Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control Limited QB-2020-003448. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm by Will Baude
As the Supreme Court memorably put it in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]