Search for: "People v. Phillips (1985)"
Results 1 - 20
of 33
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2023, 11:41 am
People lie. [read post]
4 Feb 2023, 8:05 am
Lago v. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am
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]
15 Oct 2021, 7:38 am
In addition, the hearing will explore the authorities available to the Administration and the international community to protect the people of Hong Kong, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and others. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 10:55 am
Penthouse Int'l Magazine, 1985; Schultz v. [read post]
29 May 2020, 11:42 pm
See Phillips, 775 F.3d at 543.) [read post]
15 Dec 2019, 2:52 am
Two things are clear from the language of Lord Phillips’ judgment. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 12:36 pm
Tweets are my own. (51) @VLJeker – V. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
WINN v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
Oliver edited by Jim Phillips, R. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
See Mein v. [read post]
22 May 2015, 12:26 pm
They include: (1) Nonnon v City of New York;2 (2) Simpson v City of New York;3 (3) Irizarry v City of New York;4 (4) Carollo v City of New York;5 (5) Walsh v City of New York;6 (6) Arisio v City of New York;7 (7) Parmigiano v City of New York;8 (8) Phillips v City of New York;9 and (9) Nessen v City of New York.10 There were 29 plaintiffs in the original nine actions. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 11:24 pm
On Friday, the Court of Appeal handed down the decision in Francis and another v Phillips and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1395 and, thankfully, the decision of the High Court was overturned (in part). [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] New York’s ‘aggravated harassment’ statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague
13 May 2014, 1:08 pm
” See also People v Dupont, 107 AD2d 247, 253 [1st Dept 1985] [observing that the statute's vagueness is apparent because "[i]t is not clear what is meant by communication ‘in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm’ to another person”]). [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:46 am
Over the last month, on our New Republic: Security States newsfeed, we rolled out a series designed to explain why fairly allocating the costs of software deficiencies between software makers and users is so critical to addressing the growing problem of vulnerability-ridden code—and how such a regime will require questioning some of our deep-seated beliefs about the very nature of software security. [read post]
17 Sep 2012, 1:45 am
Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 4:12 pm
See People v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm
Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 66, fn. 17 [after oral argument, the parties were invited to submit supplemental briefing regarding application of statute]; People v. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 8:17 am
Long v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:54 am
Mitt Romney recently claimed that corporations are people too, but it was Lewis Powell, the courtly gentleman from Virginia, who devised a plan 40 years ago to put the rights of corporations above those of the people. [read post]
