Search results for: "n" (3654 results)
to deter violations.”); Smith v. Kelly, No. C11-0623-RAJ-JPD, 2013 WL 5770344, at *24 n.22 (suggesting that, by ignoring nominal damages’ limited
” 2775 one of “strenuous neglect.”164 C.F. Goodey observes that “[n]o honour accrues to the academy from natural and incurable idiocy.”165
7UCN-4ZMT]. 21. See Hovenkamp & Shapiro, supra note 6, at 2024 n. 128 (characterizing the political power of corporations as being outside the realm
practice in national and international courts. See Bartholomeusz, supra note 4, at 266 n.275 (noting that CIEL was one of the original four NGO amici
812 N.E.2d 895 (Mass. 2004); Stephen F. Hanlon, State Constitutional Challenges to Indigent Defense Systems, 75 MO. L. REV. 751, 760 n.56 (2010
390-96 (1996), which discusses Mendel; and Andrew Gold, The New Concept of Loyalty in Corporate Law, 43 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 457, 483 n.130 (2009
sometimes artificial distinction between entry and search. Cf. id. at 2170 (“[A]n impermissible manner of entry does not necessarily trigger the
512 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM J A N U A R Y 2 0 , 2 0 2 0 After Suffrage: The Unfinished Business of Feminist Legal Advocacy Serena
WASH. L. REV. 1333, 1351 & n.114 (2007) (noting that the U.S. government had invoked the Lotus principle in defense of “extraordinary rendition”). 46
of all types of public and private land uses.” Id. at 627. 4. Larson, supra note 1, at 228 n.264. CLOWNEY OCT 19 NO HEADER 11/1/2005 5:13:53 PM