Search for: "State v. Daniel M." Results 1 - 20 of 1,211
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2020, 12:04 pm
  But I strongly doubt that consumers will think that the dog toy is actually produced by Jack Daniels, if for no other reason than (1) "a tag affixed to the Bad Spaniels toy states that the “product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery,”" and (2) do you really think Jack Daniels itself would produce a product that says "43% poo by volume? [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 6:27 am by Daniel Sokol
W (by her litigation friend, B) v M (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam). [read post]
2 May 2018, 12:42 pm
  So the domestic application of that principle perhaps isn't too surprising.Though I'm not sure that the framers, with their heightened sense of state sovereignty, would have thought that the Constitution enshrined that principle to the degree currently interpreted.Regardless, that's where we are. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 3:22 pm by Daniel Hemel
Assistant Professor Daniel Hemel on the Supreme Court’s certiorari grant in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 3:22 pm by Daniel Hemel
Assistant Professor Daniel Hemel on the Supreme Court’s certiorari grant in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 3:22 pm by Daniel Hemel
Assistant Professor Daniel Hemel on the Supreme Court’s certiorari grant in United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 11:34 am by David Post
I assume I'm not the first person to wonder how much of Daniels' story these folks can corroborate. 5. [read post]