Search for: "Jaynes v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2010, 8:16 am
On Tuesday, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 5:46 am
Jayne v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 9:09 pm
[Post by Venkat] Abbas v. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 12:14 pm
And then… HSE v Helen Jayne Beckett Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates Court Various commentors on this post suggested that the HSE was less than enthusiastic about prosecuting private landlords over breaches of the gas safety check rules. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
(Westwood, MA; Debra Nedder, President) Bay State Homes Real Estate Corporation (Woburn, MA; Karen Alderman, President) Bay State Rental Properties, Inc. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 7:27 am
" Those include the ability to divorce and share marital property.Moreover, in Jayne Dunnum v Dept of Employee Trust Funds, Wisconsin's Dane County Circuit Court ruled (at page 28) that the new law does not violate the state's "super DOMA" amendment.Nevertheless, on behalf of Wisconsin Family Action, the Alliance Defense Fund has petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule that the new law violates Art. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 6:24 am
In Jayne Dunnum v Dept of Employee Trust Funds, Wisconsin's Dane County Circuit Court ruled (at page 28) that the new law does not violate the state's "super DOMA" amendment. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 10:09 am
The old precedent is Phillips v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 7:29 am
Razkane v. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 8:34 am
Perrin & Nissen Ltd. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 3:44 pm
That denial means the Virginia state Supreme Court's holding is the final say in the Jaynes case, and the Virigina spam statute is definitively unconstitutional. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 9:32 am
Docket: 08-567 Title: Agripost, LLC, et al. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 12:15 pm
You can access a copy of Jaynes's brief here [pdf], and the State of Virginia's brief at SpamSuite.com here.There is no dispute that the law is overbroad. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 11:55 pm
Jaynes, where the Supreme Court is being asked to reverse a Virginia State Supreme Court decision striking down that state's spam statute on First Amendment grounds. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 7:28 am
" Jaynes v. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 7:53 pm
On the other hand, the recent finding in Virginia (in its Supreme Court, second time around) that the state’s anti-spam law was unconstitutional (in the case of exceptionally commercial spammer Jeremy Jaynes) and the broader debate on spam and the First Amendment is of some comparative interest and does indicate that the matter, at least as far as US law is concerned, is not settled. [read post]
26 Sep 2008, 7:34 pm
Earlier this month the Supreme Court of Virginia, in Jaynes v Virginia [PDF], struck down that state’s anti-spam legislation as unconstitutional, because it was ‘over-broad’. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 4:00 am
Now, where does one find the state Supreme Court's superseded February 2008 Jaynes opinion? [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 3:23 pm
Yesterday, in Jaynes v. [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 8:08 am
Jaynes v Commonwealth, Virginia Supreme Court No. 06-2388. [read post]
