Search for: "Swift v. People"
Results 1 - 20
of 450
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2009, 6:32 pm
The decision in People v Sammy L. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 10:07 am
Swift relied on Specht v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 7:17 am
Most recently, the blog PopFront published an article arguing that Taylor Swift’s reputation appeals to, and incites, certain groups of people. [read post]
3 May 2013, 9:50 am
Under the rule of Swift v. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 5:05 pm
(Darron Cummings/Associated Press) An interesting federal district court opinion handed down last week in Mueller v. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 2:03 am
Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 10:35 am
Swift (C.D. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 2:40 am
The whole Oracle v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 3:19 am
Swift v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 4:03 am
” People v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 5:51 am
That was the message of National Transportation Safety Board Chair Mark V. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 2:23 pm
[What Swift v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 9:57 am
There were "exigent circumstances" that negated the requirement for a warrant because it was an "emergency situation" that "require[d] swift action to prevent imminent danger to life. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 5:30 am
I noticed some people trading odd case names on Twitter the other day, including: Schwing v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 3:30 am
Montalvo v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 3:18 pm
For example, in the 1979 Federal district case, Brilliant v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 12:14 am
On 4 September 2019 the Administrative Court (Haddon-Cave LJ and Swift J) handed down judgment in the case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin). [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
Gold Value International Textile v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 12:16 am
The European Court of Justice ruling last Thursday in Intel v CPM (noted here by the IPKat) has not just attracted a fully-fledged Rapid Response Seminar. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 12:07 pm
The court will not afford any special deference to the USPTO's interpretation under either Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) or Skidmore v Swift (1944) when the statutory language is so "clear, unambiguous and intolerant" of such interpretation (see page 13 of the judgment). [read post]
