Search for: "People v. Daniel (1983)" Results 61 - 80 of 81
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2018, 5:06 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Daily Journal (subscription required), David Boyle looks at National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
  Once general principles of institutional structures are understood, it is possible to contextualize these insights within the realities of the American Republic--the general government, the administrative branches, inferior political units, and the residuary role of the people as ultimate sovereigns. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 10:30 pm
  The idea of pirates, smugglers, and privateers in the twenty-first century is absurd to most people, including many attorneys. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:06 am
              Currently, California Dental Association v. [read post]
4 May 2022, 5:01 am by Albert W. Alschuler
  The person most recently tried for contempt of Congress was Rita Lavelle in 1983. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
It is widely accepted that, consistent with the Dormant Commerce Clause, a firm doing multistate business must bear the cost of discovering and complying with state laws—tort laws, tax laws, franchise laws, health laws, privacy laws, and much more—everywhere it does business.[21] People and firms operating in "real space" must take steps to learn and comply with state law in places they visit or do business, or must avoid visiting or doing business in those… [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
It is apparent from epidemiological data that some people can engage in chain smoking for many decades without developing lung cancer. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
(Oxford University Press, 2008), page 2] In Canada, the prohibition against lawyers being employed to provide services to the customers of their employers[ii] can be overcome by a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “public freedom for access to the courts” argument based upon s. 2(b)’s, “freedom of opinion and expression”; see: Re Southam Inc. and The Queen (No. 1), 1983 CanLII 1707 (ONCA), 41 O.R. (2d) 113; plus an extended use of, Endean v. [read post]
27 Dec 2008, 10:19 am
According to Diogenes Laërtius, this was to convince the people of his time that he had been taken up by the gods on Olympus. * 272 BC: Pyrrhus of Epirus, the famous conquerer and source of the term pyrrhic victory, according to Plutarch died while fighting an urban battle in Argos on the back of an elephant when an old woman threw a roof tile at him, stunning him and allowing an Argive soldier to kill him. * 270 BC: Philitas of Cos, Greek intellectual, is said by… [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 3:03 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Thinking we would need to work our way through the details of complying with the current statutory conflict-of-interest safe harbors of Chapter 607, we consulted with Gary Teblum, my partner who was active in the recent revision of Chapter 607. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 1:11 pm
" (22) Notwithstanding, Daniel Bodansky argues that CIL is so rarely supported by State action, that it is not customary law at all. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 8:30 am by Guest Author
Instances might be cited, in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes …. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 3:59 pm by Patrick Lin
Related to my work here in robot ethics, the following is an advance look at my paper forthcoming in Journal of Military Ethics: Military 2.0: Ethical Blowback from Emerging Technologies ABSTRACT: The military is a major driver of technological, world-changing innovations which, like the Internet, often have unpredictable dual uses and widespread civilian impact (‘blowback’). [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:50 am
I’ve recently been blogging about my new article, The Inherent-Powers Corollary: Judicial Non-Delegation and Federal Common Law, which I’ve posted to SSRN. [read post]