Search for: "People v. Schindler" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2025, 2:19 pm
., 2022; Lambach, 2020; Schindler et al., 2021).Studies on digitalising the territorial demonstrate how digital technologies transform our society (Van Dijck, 2021; van Dijck et al., 2018), from socioeconomic relations to material landscapes (Luque-Ayala & Neves Maia, 2018; Wang & Tomassetti, 2024). [read post]
19 Dec 2024, 5:30 am by centerforartlaw
Ethical Considerations for Authenticators Next, Sharon Flescher spoke on the ethics of authentication, specifically discussing her role as an expert in one of the Knoedler-related cases: De Sole v. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 1:30 am by Blog Editorial
” 15.57 Eadie QC discusses the possibility of a single line Act of Parliament, which he says created a difficulty for the respondents as it makes no sense in the context where Parliament has put that very question to the people by way of a referendum. [read post]
28 May 2015, 8:23 am by Rebecca Tushnet
   Previously showed Schindler’s List, Godfather, Toy Story 2; now showing Shawshank Redemption w/a maggot being pulled out of breakfast, then fed to bird (universal symbol of freedom). [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 10:09 am
Cicelski Having just returned from watching oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the highly anticipated case Federal Communications Commission v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 11:37 am by Ed Wallis
The New York Times on June 13, 2011 editorializes about the Supreme Court case of Schindler Elevator Corp. v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 7:20 am by Nabiha Syed
King, Schindler Elevator Corp. v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 9:40 pm by Abhinav Chandrachud
In 2010, the Delhi High Court (Aniruddha Bahal v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 5:08 pm by Colin O'Keefe
- New York attorney Joseph Monteleone of Tressler on the firm's blog, The D&O E&O Monitor Sher v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:20 am by Kelly
Thermo-Ply, Inc (Patently-O) 7th Circuit rejects Zippo sliding scale for personal jurisdiction: Poulsen Roser A/S v. [read post]