Search for: "People v. Sutton" Results 101 - 120 of 249
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2016, 2:16 pm by Giles Peaker
’, the Sutton Council Lib Dems thought it would be a good idea to campaign against the Housing and Planning Bill (so far so good) by sending out ‘eviction notices’ to all and sundry (15,000 people. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 2:33 pm by Miriam Seifter
The government faced an uphill battle in Wednesday’s argument in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 4:08 am by SHG
In dissent, Judge Jeffrey Sutton called bullshit. [read post]
2 Jan 2016, 2:51 pm by Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D., Ph.D.
Next week, the 110th AALS Annual Meeting starts in New York. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 7:03 am by John Gregory
It says: “browsewrap agreements” … are generally considered to be enforceable contracts And courts in Canada typically uphold and enforce Terms of Use (or website browsewrap agreements) So far as I know, Canadian courts have upheld browsewrap contracts in two cases, one in BC cited by the firm (Century 21 v Rogers) and one in Quebec (Sutton Realty). [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 5:01 pm by Sandy Levinson
  Putting to one side that Judge Sutton and the Sixth Circuit created an embarrassing conflict in the circuits that was otherwise not present, I emphasized to my class the key fact that public opinion had moved so fast on the issue, that many more Americans today support the right to same-sex marriage than supported inter-racial marriage at the time of Loving v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 12:17 pm by Guest Blogger
In his opinion for 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, last November, upholding the constitutionality of state non-recognition of same-sex marriage and provoking the Supreme Court to take up the issue, Judge Jeffrey Sutton asserted that, “If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 8:16 pm by Robert Dietrick
Harkening to doubts expressed by Judge Sutton in his United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:42 pm by JB
Two interesting amicus briefs in Obergefell v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 12:55 pm
On the other hand, laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples long predate the era when most people even realized that homosexuals are a distinct group (as opposed to being essentially heterosexual people somehow tempted into what was considered sinful or antisocial behavior). [read post]
17 Jan 2015, 8:52 am by William Eskridge
   Starting with his landmark opinion for the Court in Romer v. [read post]