Search for: "Ball v. Smith" Results 41 - 60 of 232
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Many readers will recall Marcus Smith J’s decision to refuse a PI (reported here and, after it was upheld by the Court of Appeal, here). [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 10:01 am by Eugene Volokh
" Following Lori's conversation with Smith, Ball contacted Lori in September 2019, to investigate Smith's statements to Lori. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 5:02 am by Eugene Volokh
As shown by the Lukumi case, decided by a unanimous Court only a few years after Smith, Smith does not have to be a wrecking ball for religious freedom. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 11:58 am by SCOTUStalk
This is Tom Goldstein and Justice David Souter in Georgia v. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 4:48 pm by Rohit De
Discussing their contemporaries in a Srinagar ball on the eve of Indian independence, Major Hugo Creed, dispassionately notes that the eccentric Lady Candera, was a “special brand in the Indian Empire. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 9:18 am by Eugene Volokh
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1354 (9th Cir. 2013); United Nuclear Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman and Grant Hayden
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Without a crystal ball, it is impossible to predict how these cases will be decided or on what grounds. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 9:12 am by Steve Lubet
He insisted that he was just calling balls and strikes, which Biskupic calls a “veneer of neutrality” (267). [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
  This event is closed to the public.Student Presenters:Jonathon Booth, Harvard University (jonathonbooth@g.harvard.edu) The Birth of Policing in Post-Emancipation JamaicaLauren Feldman, Johns Hopkins University (lauren.feldman@jhu.edu) Constructing Legal Matrimony and the State in New York and the United States: Debating New York's Marriage Act of 1827 and its EffectsJamie Grischkan, Boston University (jgrisch@bu.edu) Banking, Law, and American Liberalism: The Rise and… [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
In Caparo v Dickman Lord Bridge cautioned against discussing duties of care in abstract terms divorced from factual context: “It is never sufficient to ask simply whether A owes B a duty of care. [read post]