Search for: "Kramer v. Kramer" Results 1 - 20 of 835
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jul 2024, 1:06 pm by Randy E. Barnett
(2021) Donald Drakeman, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers (2021) Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights is Tearing America Apart (2021) David Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 8:32 am by Gene Takagi
This excellent response was to the following article published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review: Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong (Mark Kramer & Steve Phillips)]. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 5:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Defendant was not discharged for cause, nor did it charge legal fees for any work associated with the motion practice ensuing from the supplemental disclosures (see Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, 304 AD2d 86, 91 [1st Dept 2003]). [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 2:25 pm by Xandra Kramer
This is admittedly a setback for the collective protection of privacy rights, notably similar to the one following the 2021 United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling in Lloyd v Google. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:29 pm by Will Baude
Larry Kramer, a widely respected legal scholar and historian who was my constitutional law professor at N.Y.U. 20 years ago, called it quits in 2008, on the heels of the Supreme Court's divisive decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 8:00 pm by Giesela Ruehl
Following a preface in which Prof Xandra Kramer paints a vivid picture of Jonathan’s humanity, humour and wit, and an introduction by ourselves as the editors, Part I includes four chapters which address conceptual matters relating to the nature and scope of private international law. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Bell as well as the anti-miscegenation statute at issue in Loving v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Defendant was not discharged for cause, nor did it charge legal fees for any work associated with the motion practice ensuing from the supplemental disclosures (see Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, 304 AD2d 86, 91 [1st Dept 2003]). [read post]