Search for: "SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC." Results 101 - 120 of 654
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2022, 7:49 am by Eric Goldman
Second, the plaintiff’s argument reinforces the overreach of the lawsuit, targeting defendants so remote from the harmful content that somehow they would be beyond the protections of Section 230. [read post]
29 Mar 2022, 5:04 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
13 Mar 2022, 5:13 pm by INFORRM
The High Court has ruled a class-action lawsuit against TikTok concerning children’s privacy violations can proceed, SMO v TikTok Inc. and Others [2022] EWHC 489 (QB). [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
On 1 March 2022 Nicklin J heard an application in the case of SMO v Tik Tok Inc. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 4:08 pm by Ben Vernia
This is the second largest annual total in False Claims Act history, and the largest since 2014. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
In the US, for example, the Securities and Exchange Commission has flagged it is likely to introduce new rules on climate-risk disclosures for companies in the second half of 2021. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 2:56 pm by Jordan Bierkos
The first scenario is non-lienable maintenance, while the second is lienable construction. [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 8:01 am
This is the Supreme Court's most significant Second Amendment case since McDonald v. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:43 am by Eugene Volokh
From the Foundation for Individual Rights' letter sent Wednesday to Emerson College President William Gilligan, which I think is generally quite right: FIRE is disappointed that Emerson College failed to respond to our letter of October 5, 2021, concerning its suspension and institution of misconduct charges against a student organization for distributing stickers that—as Emerson now recognizes—were intended to criticize China's government. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 4:48 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The 2011 statutory amendments clarified who will constitute a real party, and hence a necessary party, at the first stage of the process to provide a “bright line rule” regarding who must be named and served, but did not “alter the second step, i.e., evaluating whether the real party in interest was indispensable to the action” such that the action could not proceed in the party’s absence. [read post]