Search for: "Thompson v. USA"
Results 61 - 80
of 161
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2010, 9:55 am
Thompson v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 7:13 am
Thompson. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 7:05 am
Bennett, consolidated with McComish v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 2:49 pm
1988 Thompson v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 7:48 am
Thompson, a prosecutorial misconduct case scheduled for argument on October 6. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 2:32 pm
Rob Thompson, one of the prosecutors in Cumberland County, said in his closing arguments: “They do not have evidence of purposeful discrimination. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 6:24 am
Thompson. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 9:05 am
Commentary supportive of the decision comes from David Gans at Balkinization; critical commentary comes from Terrence Pell at USA Today and Joshua Thompson at Forbes, And at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick concludes that, although the decision is “a loss for Alito and Clarence Thomas and the chief justice on affirmative action,” there is also “mass confusion about what it all means in any concrete terms. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am
The first was Hughes v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 6:35 am
Thompson as an example. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 12:04 pm
This blog’s other symposium, on Fisher v. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 12:17 pm
DaimlerChrysler Corp Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor 08a0367n.06 Bilak-Thompson v. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 12:17 pm
DaimlerChrysler Corp Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor 08a0367n.06 Bilak-Thompson v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 6:29 am
At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Joshua Thompson discusses the recent revelation in Joan Biskupic’s new book that the Court was initially split five to three in the affirmative action case Fisher v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 1:16 pm
” At USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an interview with Justice Ginsburg, who – among other things – expresses the belief that the majority’s decision in Connick v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 6:33 am
Amant v Thompson, 390 US 727, 731; see also, Restatement § 600, comment b). * * * [T]here is a critical difference between not knowing whether something is true and being highly aware that it is probably false. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:30 am
At Slate, Richard Thompson Ford contends that “affirmative action is the kind of political controversy the courts should stay out of. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 4:36 pm
Rohan Vidal and Kevin Thompson v The Queen (Jamaica), heard 29 March 2011. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 5:49 am
”); Thompson v. [read post]
