Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The article was later reprinted in other newspapers around the state, including the Des Moines Leader. [9] In response, the Cherry Sisters sued the Chronicle and the Leader for US $15,000, claiming that the unflattering descriptions of their physical appearance presented in the article constituted acts of "false and malicious" libel. [10]
Known in the German-speaking world as Siebzehn und Vier ("seventeen and four"), Einundzwanzig ("twenty-one"), Hop(p)sen, Hoppm, [11] Rathen or, frequently, by its original French names of vingt-un or vingt-et-un, the game had spread to Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire there by the second half of the 18th century, [12] and had become a ...
Derby du Languedoc: Montpellier HSC vs. Nîmes Olympique. [17] Derby des Ardennes: CS Sedan Ardennes vs. Troyes AC. [18] Derby de la Côte d'Azur: AS Monaco vs. OGC Nice, can also less commonly refer to games including Olympique de Marseille and AS Cannes; Derby des Alpes-Maritimes - OGC Nice vs AS Cannes. [19] Derby Normand: SM Caen vs. Le ...
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner: 350 U.S. 46 (1955) Hedging futures gains are ordinary if on raw materials United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956) contracts under the Natural Gas Act of 1938: Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. 350 U.S. 348 (1956) contracts under the Federal Power Act ...
French Open 2023: Khachanov 3-6, 1-6, 6-2, 6-1 Lestienne Sunday 28 May 2023 13:18 , Ben Fleming Khachanov races through the fourth set, breaking again to win 6-1.
United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft: 466 (1916) White none none S.D.N.Y. reversed Myles Salt Company, Ltd. v. Iberia and St. Mary Drainage District: 478 (1916) McKenna none none La. reversed Northwestern Laundry v. City of Des Moines: 486 (1916) Day none none S.D. Iowa: affirmed Southern Railroad Company v ...
AOL latest headlines, entertainment, sports, articles for business, health and world news.
[9] [4] [10] In the school context, the United States Supreme Court has identified three major relevant considerations: [9] The extent to which the student's speech-in-question poses a substantial threat of disruption (Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.). Whether the speech is sexually vulgar or obscene (Bethel School