Search for: "Holmes v. Sanders" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Apr 2020, 6:49 pm by Sandy Levinson
 The basic problem, as Jack fully realizes, is how one constructs a stable--and admirable--polity for what Holmes called people of "fundamentally different views," where some of the central differences involve precisely what might count as "the public interest" or "pubic good. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:20 am
 Ben Challis (1709 Blog) was quick off the mark with news that Klinger v Conan Doyle Estate (the "Sherlock Holmes" case) is not heading for a US Supreme Court ruling, Tara Aaron (Aaron Sanders) has potted this too, for IP Breakdown. [read post]
10 May 2016, 3:05 am by Broc Romanek
” – featuring Brink Dickerson of Troutman Sanders; Chris Holmes of E&Y; Deb Kelley of Genesis; and Dave Lynn of TheCorporateCounsel.net and Morrison & Foerster… When Stars Collide: CEOs v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:59 pm by Erin Miller
Bakke (1977); and Citizens United v. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:12 pm by Andrew Hamm
Sanders, “holding the Constitution’s command that the House of Representatives be elected ‘by the People’ requires that congressional districts be equal in population” New York Times v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
  (Yesterday, Samantha Barbas present on her book, Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm by Schachtman
” Fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will recognize that iterative disjunctive syllogism is nothing other than the process of elimination, as explained by Doyle’s fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:46 am by John Elwood
The trial court excluded Sanders’s other-crimes evidence, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
”  It was assumed that such adaptation would invoke Article V at the national level. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 12:21 pm
Ct. 1640 (2010) (Apr. 21, 2010), the United States Supreme Court held that a plan adminstrator’s discretionary authority to interpret a plan is entitled to deference, even if a prior determination with regard to the same claim was invalid.Estate planning with retirement assetsArnstein & LehrFor many individuals, retirement benefits represent a significant portion of their wealth.Second Circuit finds that class arbitration waiver clause is unconscionable, refuses to compel… [read post]