Search for: "People v. McDonald" Results 1 - 20 of 678
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2010, 11:19 am by Richard Aynes - Guest
Writing in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 2:06 pm by Steven M. Sweat
Most people have heard about the McDonald’s coffee case and might have misconceptions about it. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 6:05 am by Jason Mazzone
Justice Stevens’s dissenting opinion in McDonald v. [read post]
5 Dec 2009, 1:16 pm
The latest issue of the libertarian magazine Reason has an interesting essay by Brian Doherty on the briefing in McDonald v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 5:12 am by Walter Olson
[Examiner] Tags: McDonald's, obesity Related posts Pelman v. [read post]
Perhaps the most well known (albeit convoluted) perception of a frivolous lawsuit is that of Stella Liebeck v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 10:43 am
In other McDonald news, Declan McCullagh of CBS News has an article discussing some of the McDonald amicus briefs, including mine. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:27 am by Jon
Supreme Court announced its decision today in McDonald v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am by Stephanie Smith, Arden Chambers.
This case was wholly unlike the case of Pieretti v Enfield London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1104; [2011] PTSR 565 (which held that the section 49A duty complements a housing authority’s duties to the homeless under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996).  [read post]
26 Dec 2008, 11:44 am
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 6:17 pm by David Kopel
The following exchange took place during James Feldman’s oral argument today, on behalf of the Chicago government, in McDonald v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 7:28 pm
"As you know, the better our business does it enables us to invest in our people and our restaurants. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:40 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) I don’t have much that’s original or interesting to say about the historical and jurisprudential arguments made by the majority and the dissent in McDonald v. [read post]