Search results for: "2" (3471 results)
Posner, Aggregation and Law, 122 YALE L.J. 2 (2012). the yale law journal online 122:359 2013 360 What I offer is a clear prescription for
this ambiguity. See Skinner v. Switzer, No. 2:09-CV-0281, 2010 WL 273143, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2010) (finding that Skinner had raised some claims
341 2013 342 Pathology case,2 the Court has an opportunity to clarify the applicable rules by identifying the kinds of diagnostic inventions
individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2006). 10. See, e.g., JA Apparel
Yale Law Journal - INA Section 242(g): Immigration Agents, Immunity, and Damages Suits
Regulatory Copyright, 83 N.C. L. REV. 87 (2004). 220. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 110(1)-(2), 112(f) (2000). GIBSON_1-29-07_FORMATTED FOR SC2 3/14/2007
994, 998 (7th Cir. 2007). 2. Id. (quoting Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 441 (1963) (Warren, C.J., concurring in the result)). the yale
2855-58 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1638(b)(2), 1640(a) (2006 & Supp. 2011)). 7. See Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate
1) (West 2013). 117. Id. § 2699.3(a)(2)(B). 118. See supra note 110. 119. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (2006) (granting the EEOC the right to
to account for much of the sentence imposed due to the anchoring effect discussed above. 28. Starr & Rehavi, supra note 2, at 19. 29. Id. at 20