Search for: "People v Britton" Results 1 - 18 of 18
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Jedediah Britton-Purdy David Singh Grewal Thanks to Jack Balkin for letting us comment on his Cycles of Constitutional Time. [read post]
15 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019).Jedediah Britton-Purdy[*]This long post sketches two thoughts prompted by time with the wide-ranging, provocative, and fecund letters that make up Democracy and Dysfunction. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 2:06 pm by Giles Peaker
The Court held, after an excursus on contractual interpretation after Arnold v Britton, and on the findings in Lambeth v Thomas and Rochdale v Dixon, that this was not an agency agreement and that Southwark were indeed ‘the customer’. [read post]
The Court’s reluctance last year to interfere with parties’ freedom of contract is also apparent in the contractual interpretation case of Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36 (Case Comment here). [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 1:13 pm by Giles Peaker
A very belated (and brief) note on Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36, as I have just realised we didn’t cover it. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 3:10 pm
The court in Britton approved the opinion in People v. [read post]
29 Dec 2013, 12:31 pm by Ron Coleman
 Contrast this with the old fashioned approach of learning things and meeting actual people. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 7:13 am by Neil Cahn
Cooper, in his November 29, 2013 opinion in Travis v. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 7:24 pm by Ron Coleman
As our readership grew, people came to view us as an important presence in the drug and device f [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 2:47 pm by Beck, et al.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (courts must “insist” upon “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations” before a suit may “survive a prediscovery motion for dismissal”); Papasan v. [read post]
10 Jun 2007, 12:23 am
(See Professor Eric Goldman’s excellent post on the recent Ninth Circuit decision/”hairball” that is Fair Housing Counsel v. [read post]