Search for: "Smith v. Ga. Power Co" Results 1 - 20 of 123
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2023, 12:26 pm by Brantley Smith and Robert Slovak
J. 771, 773 (2013), cited in Brief of Amicus Curiae Pioneer Natural Resources Co., in Support of Appellants. 3 Smith, 3 O.N.E. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 2:34 pm by Giles Peaker
Tendering of a cheque can amount to (conditional) payment, if the cheque is honoured (Felix Hadley & Co v Hadley (1898) 2 Ch 681 ), and if so, counts as payment at the date the cheque is tendered (Homes v Smith (2000) Lloyds LR 139 ). [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:24 pm by David Kopel
Professor Wallace and I are among the co-authors of the law school textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (3d ed. 2022, Aspen Pub.). [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 11:37 am by David Kopel
These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2004) (undue hardship to force an employer to allow anti-gay religious postings at work); Anderson v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The US experience, as shown by securities class actions such as Owens Corning v National Union Fire Insurance Co [6], indicates that the construction of exclusions is not a simple issue. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am by Eugene Volokh
And litigation of course deploys the coercive power of the state, even as it also accomplishes private goals. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 8:26 pm by David Kopel
This post is co-authored by Campbell University law professor Gregory Wallace. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 7:50 am by Eugene Volokh
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (upholding criminalization of obscenity); Smith v. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 7:50 am by Eugene Volokh
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (upholding criminalization of obscenity); Smith v. [read post]