Search for: "People v. Stone" Results 81 - 100 of 910
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2019, 3:25 am
A view from the Mary Quantexhibition at the V&AOn Monday evening, the Victoria & Albert Museum saw over two-thousand attendees pour through its marble and tiled halls for AIPPI's Cultural Evening. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 11:46 pm by Helen Macpherson (AU)
ACCC v Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in liquidation) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced action against Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in liquidation) back in 2018 for making false claims that its tourists souvenirs, including didgeridoos, boomerangs, message stones and bull-roarers, all painted in Indigenous styles, were made in Australia and hand painted by Indigenous persons, when this was not the case. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 11:46 pm by Helen Macpherson (AU)
ACCC v Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in liquidation) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced action against Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in liquidation) back in 2018 for making false claims that its tourists souvenirs, including didgeridoos, boomerangs, message stones and bull-roarers, all painted in Indigenous styles, were made in Australia and hand painted by Indigenous persons, when this was not the case. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 9:04 am by Lovechilde
He and his administration are stone-walling legitimate attempts at Congressional oversight. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 3:15 am by Barry Sookman
Putting valuations… 2019-06-24 Facebook page publisher liable for defamation Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Voller v Fairfax Media Publications https://t.co/rNwUr8Oi6g 2019-06-24 RT @jreidenberg: Smart move. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 1:44 pm by Sasha Volokh
As Jonathan writes, the Supreme Court (in Kisor v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 2:50 pm by Howard Knopf
The Board has purported to be concerned with the public interest all along – so do we really need to etch this into stone, whatever it may mean? [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 4:16 pm by Chanelle Wong
  In assessing the appropriate amount of damages, the Court considered that only a small group of people heard the comments, the comments did not adversely affect Mr. [read post]