Search for: "People v David S." Results 1881 - 1900 of 5,858
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2023, 7:25 pm by Jim Lindgren
My Northwestern colleague, Steve Calabresi, asked me to post this on his behalf: In an earlier post on the Volokh Conspiracy, I described Professors Akhil Reed Amar's and Vikram David Amar's disagreement with an amicus brief that former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Professor Gary Lawson, and I filed in Moore v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 2:50 am by SHG
  Under the 9th Circuit's decision in United States v. [read post]
6 Nov 2016, 4:14 pm by INFORRM
On 3 November 2016, Sir David Eady gave judgment in the libel damages assessment of Undre v London Borough of Harrow ([2016] EWHC 2761 (QB)). [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
On 23 March 2017 Sir David Eady heard an application in the case of EZE Group Ltd v Taylor Marshall Ltd. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to work hard to avoid any felony charges against the president’s son. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 9:07 am by Ron Coleman
 And now the people who gave you five-dollar coffee in a paper cup had lost another one — one they thought they had won, namely the Starbucks v. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 8:29 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
By David Galpern, a summer associate at Fox Rothschild LLP, based in the firm’s Princeton office A recently enacted Virginia law amending Va. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 8:29 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
By David Galpern, a summer associate at Fox Rothschild LLP, based in the firm’s Princeton office A recently enacted Virginia law amending Va. [read post]
26 Sep 2018, 3:53 am by Scott Bomboy
In his majority opinion in National Labor Relations Board V. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 9:36 am by David Post
The census citizenship question case (New York et al. v Dep't of Commerce, back in the SDNY after remand from the Supreme Court in June) has taken a strange new turn. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:20 pm
Cooper jokingly describes this hearing as Paulson v. [read post]