Search for: "People v. Smith (1993)" Results 81 - 100 of 286
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm by Leslie C. Griffin
It drafted the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which rejected Smith. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and Lane v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Finally, there is RFRA, federal legislation which was enacted in 1993, with overwhelming bipartisan support, in response to a Supreme Court ruling—Employment Division v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:06 am by Stephen Bilkis
The Court further ruled the People may question the defendant about the period of time that he warranted in this case and his use of the alias Robert Smith. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
  Because doing the job right would require research well beyond prescription medical products, we looked for research help, and enterprising (pun intended) Reed Smith associate Kevin Hara stepped up to handle the initial spadework. [read post]