Search for: "Black v. Harris et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2024, 11:30 am
Wade, Griswold v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 7:23 pm
For example, becoming familiar with the geography of Clarendon County, SC, may help students better understand the 1952 court case Harry Briggs Jr. et al. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 3:05 pm
Black, Who Owns Your Data, 48 Rutgers Comp. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 5:13 pm
See Brief for Amicus Curiae MacArthur Justice Center, et al. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 7:51 am
Bryc Katarzyna, et al. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 5:01 am
The suit, Texas Democratic Party et al v. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 3:48 am
Ct. [4] Dorsey, et al v. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 3:44 am
Paul Heaton et al., The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention, 69 Stanford Law Review 711, 718 (2017) [hereinafter Downstream Consequences]. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 6:28 am
Stone, et al., Constitutional Law (Aspen Law & Business, 4th ed., 2001): 331-419. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 2:20 pm
See Clinton Amos et al., A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Impulse Buying, 31 J. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Abbott, et al. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Abbott, et al. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 11:53 am
Black, Jr. and Philip Bobbitt, forthcoming from Yale Press in September. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm
See Dulong v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 11:50 am
Link to opinion here.Ashraf Mahmoud, et al v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
PIONEER MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et. al, The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act affords certain protections to elders and dependent adults. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 1:01 am
Blume, et al. argue that there are compelling reasons to read McCleskey narrowly. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
HOLLAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2012-41959 Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]
