Search for: "McMahon v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 130
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2011, 12:36 pm by Eugene Volokh
”For a more recent, but factually rather different, § 403 case, see McMahon v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Mark Graber
Consider the different perspectives an advocate of abortion rights might take on the contemporary politics of reproductive choice in the United States. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 5:01 am
  Currently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering Judge McMahon’s dismissal of Southern Cherry Street LLC v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 12:11 am
The court rejected the conversion of the common area to individual space, without the unanimous consent of the owners, as it altered the owners' percentage interests in the common areas.In McMahon v. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 8:46 am
In 2008, another judge of the federal district court, Colleen McMahon, had faced the same question in Gallo v. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 8:44 am by Raffaela Wakeman
” Military Judge James Pohl, who is overseeing the key military commission cases, has set the date for the trial in United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 7:41 am by Joshua Matz
  On this blog, Orin Kerr previewed the search-related issue presented in United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 4:49 pm by Eva Arevuo
 This law provides an exception to the general rule that the person who creates a work is the legal author of that work; according to copyright law in the United States, a work “made for hire” is legally owned by the employer, and not the employee. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 1:52 pm by Kent Scheidegger
United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), and Justice Breyer's opinion for the Court does not actually use the word "nasty. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 4:31 am
In support of its proposal, PIABA cites the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 5:00 am by Ben
" The Court of Appeals determined that New York common law does not recognise a "public performance right" in their decision in Flo & Eddie v. [read post]