Search for: "Wilson v. Duncan" Results 1 - 20 of 52
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2010, 8:53 am by Duncan Hollis
  Of course, Woodrow Wilson’s first of his famous fourteen points insisted that we have “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 10:11 am by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) Yesterday the Fourth Circuit handed down an interesting Fourth Amendment decision in United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm by Eugene Volokh
According to the denial of rehearing order, In the en banc poll, eight judges voted in favor of rehearing (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Oldham), and nine judges voted against rehearing (Judges Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Wilson, Douglas, and Ramirez). [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 6:42 pm by Josh Blackman
Judge Ho recused, and Judge Wilson joined the court after the case was submitted, and did not participate. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 12:00 am by INFORRM
  She was one of the most highly respected and brilliant members of the media law bar and an editor of the leading textbook, Duncan and Neill. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 10:04 am
., woman is the first to be awarded human rights damages by the Ontario Superior Court in a wrongful dismissal action under relatively new provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.Wilson v. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
Bauer Media v Wilson (No2) [2018] VSCA 154, (Australia) Rebel Wilson’s defamation award of A$4,749,920.60 against Bauer Media was the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria. [read post]
8 Jan 2023, 4:25 am by jonathanturley
” Thirteen judges agreed with the conclusion though twelve (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson) reversed on lenity grounds while eight members (Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson) reversed on the ground that federal law unambiguously fails to cover non-mechanical bump stocks. [read post]