Search for: "People v. Andrews (1999)"
Results 1 - 20
of 125
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2022, 2:01 pm
I've long been troubled by the relatively aggressive versions of this "most-favored-nation" theory, starting with my A Common-Law Model for Religious Exemptions article in 1999 (pp. 1539-42) on to my Fulton v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 9:31 am
Seaport Investments Limited, Seymore Henry Sweeney Carol Sweeney v Andrew Cameron, Mitchell Bailey, John Crooks and the Attorney-General [1999] NIQB 1943 This case concerns rights of way across a property near the Giant's Causeway known as Runkerry House. [read post]
26 May 2010, 9:31 am
Seaport Investments Limited, Seymore Henry Sweeney Carol Sweeney v Andrew Cameron, Mitchell Bailey, John Crooks and the Attorney-General [1999] NIQB 1943 This case concerns rights of way across a property near the Giant's Causeway known as Runkerry House. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 5:54 am
L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which held that the unnecessary institutional segregation of disabled people constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities ActUNSEALED SUIT TOSSED IN FALSE CLAIMS ACT CASE, United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:20 pm
Not every gunshot ineluctably results in serious physical injury (see, People v Gray, 30 AD3d 771 [3rd Dept 2006] [victim shot with shotgun from 20 feet away, evidence insufficient to establish serious physical injury]; see also, People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726 [1984] [gunshot injury does not by itself establish substantial pain as required for physical injury]; People v Francis, 112 AD2d 167 [2nd Dept 1985] [same]; People v… [read post]
21 Jul 2009, 8:35 am
Georgia that some death penalty laws enacted in the wake of Furman v. [read post]
Mud Mungerer Patrick Hindert's Libelous Words About Structured Settlement Industry Riding Knife Edge
6 Nov 2007, 10:14 pm
In a blog post dated November 6, 2007 Patrick Hindert writes and publishes "although the annuity products (equity-indexed v fixed annuities) and the sales targets (elderly persons v personal injury victims) are different, structured settlements (at least the primary market) appear to share many of the business practices (class action lawyer Andrew S.) [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 8:00 am
In Skinner v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:00 am
While in State B, Alex spanks Andrew in a way that causes Andrew to fall down, bloody his mouth, and lose a tooth. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 5:30 am
Did you know that most people are legally and lawfully eligible to be tax exempt? [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 8:06 pm
(See Delaney v. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 9:34 am
United States, 527 U.S. 173 (1999). [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 5:06 am
In National Assn of Broadcasters v. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 1:56 pm
L. 1167 (1999). [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 4:00 am
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, by Sean DelGiallo ‘Witty Judge Pens Acerbic Judgment’ – The Hearing Clinic (Niagara Falls) Inc. v. 866073 Ontario Limited, et al., 2014 ONSC 5831, by Georgialee Lang BA JD FCIArb ‘Quebec (Attorney General) v A—Much Ado About Saying “I do”’- Quebec (Attorney General) v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 2:54 am
Andrew Greenan will also attend. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 4:00 am
Nor does this COVID-19 vaccine requirement discriminate on the basis of any of the four grounds recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to date as being analogous, which include i) citizenship (Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 143); ii) marital status (Miron v Trudel, 1995 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 418; Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh, 2002 SCC 83); iii) sexual orientation (Egan v Canada, 1995… [read post]
20 Nov 2016, 9:01 pm
In Sansone, Andrew J. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 6:47 am
Since Grupo Mexicano in 1999, the U.S. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 1:33 pm
In the Andrew Jones and James Rutten No-Action Letter, SEC No-Action Letter, 1999 WL 377873 (Jun. 8, 1999), the SEC Staff opined that the issuance of three free shares of common stock to the first one million people who register with the issuer to receive the shares, whether or not through the issuer’s Internet site, and the issuance of one additional share (up to a specified maximum) to each shareholder who referred others who also become a shareholder, was… [read post]
