(1)Court in Carlill’s case decide that the advertisement for the Smoke Ball was a legally binding?
336172
Yes the court said that it was binding and they had to pay off a lot of sick people.
896769
Not unconstitutional in any way.\n\n/is a smoker.
810927
Are you talking about DeRolph vs. State of Ohio? Try the link below, which gives a chronology of the case. Or try searching on "DeRolph vs. State of Ohio" for other links that may give you the information you need. Good luck!
287562
the good faith clause comes into play if, you acted in "good faith" against the law. meaning if you believe in good faith that it was legal, then you have a defense. example...i am going to unlock a car door for someone, and i run the plate and it comes back to the guys sister, mother, father, etc. then later that comes back stolen...then in "good faith" i proceeded safly. due to available info it was ok. if cops saw pot on table through window, then it is called plain site. and yes cops can search without permission.
947965
If the judge signed it, it is enforceable, thus "legal". While the lawyers' signatures indicate assent on the part of the attorneys and their clients, the judge's signature is controlling.
531975
The case is "Pye v. Graham."  It was regarding adverse possession and land rights in the UK.  A pretty thorough recap of the facts and decision in the case can be found at the following:\n\nhttp://www.garywebber.co.uk/propertylawuk/pyegraham.htm
175092
It wasn't an HBO commercial...  It was a commercial for a television show on NBC.  If I remember correctly, it was a promo for the TV show "Law Firm"  I did some digging on NBC's website and confirmed my memory correctly.
840949
Nope.\n\nAs long as the law is one designed for the benefit of the community, it is allowed. The only exception are laws which violation some specific guarantee or limits imposed by the constitution.
952007
Yes. They give you precriptions for it and it's legal if you have the papers to posess and smoke it anywhere. It is legal to posess up to 8 pounds on a interstate. It really don't matter if you have the papers or not it's pretty much legal all around there anyways. I lived in San Diego for a while and I had it on me all the time and smoked it wherever I wanted and cops just smiled and waved like it was normal
1119110
dunno if this is the same Frank Anderson:\nhttp://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2000/cr980294.pdf
916203
The key word there is "legally".  No minor can give legal consent.  Period.\nI would love for you to post a link that proves your allegation that the ACLU supports the MBLA.\nThanks.  I'll be waiting.
97665
No -- in general there is a First Amendment right to free speech even about illegal activities.  You should not cross the line into conspiracing to break the law -- which just talking about it or reviewing wouldn't do -- nor should you encourage nor induce people to break the law.  That is a fine line, and some such activity will be protected as free speech.\n\nIn general it is not illegal to possess or buy a cd or dvd made in violation of copyright -- but it is to make another copy or distribute it.  You should know, though, that when you download you are making a copy, and so downloading a cd you do not have the rights to is a copyright violation in a way that simply purchasing a hard copy would not be.
405100
Possibly with a court order
670290
There is one basic test given to all rights the Court deems fundamental (Speech happens to be one of those rights).  That is the Compelling Interest Test (CIT).  Simply put, the government has to prove that is has a very compelling interest in overriding the right of the individual.  It must also show that the law or action being challenged is the least restrictive means possible of accomplishing that interest.\n\nNow, the CIT is completely made up by the Court.  There is nothing about it in the Constitution, just as there is nothing about the Lemon Test or the Lopez test in the Constitution.  Nevertheless, this is test usually followed by the Court.
812781
everyone above told you the summary, here is the actual charges that were filed in the district court...\n\nhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1017061snipes1.html
1086188
was that made of Styrofoam? LAWYERS ON THE NET ADVERTISING" is WRONG
369041
A customer in SC sued Pizza Hut for a racial slur that was printed on his receipt. You don't give any details, so I can't tell if your case would fall along similar lines, but it's certainly plausible, as long as actual defamation of character took place. Being abusive is not defamation.