Search for: "Whitman v. Whitman"
Results 101 - 120
of 377
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2011, 5:56 pm
" As Whitman said, "Do I contradict myself? [read post]
11 Sep 2020, 9:30 pm
ICYMI: A review of James Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model (Concord Monitor). [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 8:00 am
As part of our continuing series of posts covering the awards and honors announced at the recently concluded annual meeting of the American Society for Legal History, here are the Society’s Student Research Colloquium Fellows for 2023:Omar Abdel-Ghaffar, Harvard University, James Whitman/Yale Law School Fellow:The Uncharitable Foundations of Mamluk Endowment Siobhan Barco, Princeton University Women, Power, and the Legal News, 1830-1930 Bonnie Cherry, University of… [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 4:56 pm
McIntosh, and Whitman v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 3:40 pm
Obaidi v. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 7:43 am
A question for you con law folks out there: Does anyone think that this lawsuit stands much of a chance, given the Court's holding in Whitman v American Trucking, 531 U.S. 457 (2001)? [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 9:02 am
The plaintiffs in Glatt v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:59 am
The appeals court, in Wang v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 10:37 pm
Craigslist, otherwise known as eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2013, 5:52 am
In a well-known academic freedom case, Axson-Flynn v. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 7:20 am
As we previously reported, the case, Scott v. [read post]
25 Feb 2021, 8:26 am
Whitman and John P. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 12:10 pm
Whitman, who is a Whitman Capital LLC portfolio manager, was charged with using insider trading tips to trade in Marvell Technology Group Ltd. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 12:47 pm
Whitman, Jr. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 6:41 am
What is interesting is that the exact same phony cost benefit arguments that the Supreme Court held EPA need not consider in Whitman v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 2:53 am
Unfortunately, the state of the law is that to hold Chicago liable, plaintiff's must show it to be an accepted governmental practice under Monell v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:00 am
The judges, who ruled unanimously, expanded on the “zone of physical danger” requirement set up in the court’s 1990 Williams v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 11:31 am
Starbucks and Winans v. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 7:03 am
And it’s named after an inspiring figure: Raymond V. [read post]
7 May 2013, 9:39 am
The Michigan Supreme Court apparently agreed with our concerns: Last week in a separate Whistleblower Protection claim,Whitman v City of Burton, it essentially rejected the reasoning relied upon in the Furhr decision in reversing (yet another) jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff's Whistleblower Protection Claim. [read post]
