Search for: "People v. Gamble (1994)" Results 1 - 20 of 34
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm by admin
Despite their obvious intelligence, capacity for affection, when it comes to toxicology, dogs are not people, although some people act like the less reputable varieties of dogs. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Telephone and Telegraph Companies The first came in the early 1900s, where some government officials demanded that telephone and telegraph companies block access to their services by people suspected of running illegal gambling operations. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
The net effect is a playing field on gun issues that is far more level than it has been since NRA-backed Republicans took over Congress in 1994. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 10:25 am by Eric Goldman
With the nuclear option of frozen text as an unbearable downside risk, the Internet giants will cave and support a legislative deal, which they can try to amend later, rather than gamble at the ballot box. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 1:36 am
Whether domain expertise can safeguard against hindsight bias is not entirely clear, experts – specifically judges – are certainly not immune to hindsight bias.[3]Deliberation in groups does not seem to reliably reduce hindsight bias, but the research is limited and restricted to small groups (three people). [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  In Mills, the plaintiff claimed that, due to a variant gene (“CYP”), she could not metabolize the defendant’s drug as well as most other people. [read post]
7 May 2015, 11:31 am by Schachtman
Olah, “My Search for Carbocations and Their Role in Chemistry,” Nobel Lecture (Dec. 8, 1994), quoting George von Békésy, Experiments in Hearing 8 (N.Y. 1960); see also McMillan v. [read post]
24 Nov 2012, 12:38 pm by Schachtman
  The caveat makes sense, but it clearly was never intended to be some sort of bright-line rule for people too lazy to look at the actual studies and data. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am by Anita Davies
In Rahman Lord Bingham and Lord Roger agreed with the decision in Gamble and held that D2 was not liable: it was as if two new people had jumped out of the bushes and murdered the victim. [read post]