Search for: "People v. Potter"
Results 101 - 120
of 301
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2010, 5:56 pm
" Legg v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 7:52 am
From Quidditch to Quids In: Potter prevails as detractors fail to make payment into court Around the blogs. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
The only thing close are the circumstances in Oberly v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 5:02 pm
.* Some people will continue to believe in Santa Claus, a flat Earth and the Manchester Manifesto.I particularly love the second point. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 4:24 am
In Heythrop Zoological Gardens v CAPS, Heythrop (trading as 'Amazing Animals') are providers of animals to the film and television industries, and CAPS (Captive Animal Protection Society) are a charity campaigning against the exploitation of animals. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 12:05 pm
” Durham v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 3:42 am
Also, Trevor Potter wrapped up with an assessment of the DC Circuit Court decision on the Van Hollen v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 12:56 pm
By 1961, his position had not changed, and he attempted to sway Justice Potter Stewart to his side while Baker v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:50 am
We will likely see a similar correction in Carpenter v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 8:56 am
Yesterday’s opinion in Welch v. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 1:59 am
In the matter of an application by James Hugh Allister and others for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), In the matter of an application by Clifford Peoples for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 30th November – 1st December 2022 R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council, heard 7th December 2022. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 12:49 am
The only people to have colleges named after them in both Oxford and Cambridge are Jesus, St John, Wolfson ... and CATS! [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 10:57 am
See Martin v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:36 am
The Statute Restricts Conduct Only When It Is Accompanied by Speech That Conveys a Certain Message Utah bigamy law does not ban married people from having sex with people other than their spouses.[2] It does not ban married people from living with extramarital romantic partners. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 3:43 pm
It’s mostly Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity from his concurrence in Jacobellis v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 12:15 pm
iRacing v. [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 6:08 am
In Hogan v 1187938 B.C. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 12:11 pm
Butsee Barnes v. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 2:19 pm
[Then there’s no point in requiring people to use one rather t [read post]
