Help
RSS
API
Feed
Maltego
Contact
Domain > capesatelite.co.za
×
More information on this domain is in
AlienVault OTX
Is this malicious?
Yes
No
DNS Resolutions
Date
IP Address
2019-05-17
104.31.80.191
(
ClassC
)
2024-09-14
172.67.175.58
(
ClassC
)
Port 80
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved PermanentlyDate: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:05:05 GMTContent-Type: text/htmlContent-Length: 167Connection: keep-aliveCache-Control: max-age3600Expires: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:05:05 GMTLocation: https://capesatelite.co.za/Report-To: {endpoints:{url:https:\/\/a.nel.cloudflare.com\/report\/v4?s%2Fj%2BC3Ao1XaieWNnGnEV7iFiSu5i5S%2BWAUNtzJCTfD0izr9j0MrUyxVh%2Bd1HmcKEfQRL1SCBQ7vKa2OS4YxzMWOYrfBDgiLE5f43m9l9stALDYb1J8nEbfojbY3BENAmGJwhlSag%3D},group:cf-nel,max_age:604800}NEL: {success_fraction:0,report_to:cf-nel,max_age:604800}Server: cloudflareCF-RAY: 8c2edeb74fb75ee5-PDXalt-svc: h3:443; ma86400 html>head>title>301 Moved Permanently/title>/head>body>center>h1>301 Moved Permanently/h1>/center>hr>center>cloudflare/center>/body>/html>
Port 443
HTTP/1.1 200 OKDate: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:05:06 GMTContent-Type: text/html; charsetUTF-8Transfer-Encoding: chunkedConnection: keep-alivelink: https://georgialawreview.org/wp-json/>; relhttps://api.w.org/Cache-Control: max-age3600expires: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:05:06 GMTvary: Accept-EncodingCF-Cache-Status: DYNAMICReport-To: {endpoints:{url:https:\/\/a.nel.cloudflare.com\/report\/v4?sTZ3TqtCSdmTbyCiZKl%2FwTYy18sulLvwFnmhEPgd5VV7yffHIfdl95W9G7z%2FtjCMceJ1C6i4B8LUOWLzVDzxzuTQuTnI%2F%2BKGD%2BwQmUadxls8NHK4LHg%2BRC0X2J%2BPlKVYLooW1zU0%3D},group:cf-nel,max_age:604800}NEL: {success_fraction:0,report_to:cf-nel,max_age:604800}Server: cloudflareCF-RAY: 8c2edeb7be4fef24-PDXalt-svc: h3:443; ma86400 !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd>html xmlnshttp://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml>head profilehttp://gmpg.org/xfn/11>title>Georgia Law Review/title>meta http-equivContent-Type contenttext/html; charsetUTF-8 />link relstylesheet typetext/css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/style.css mediascreen />link relalternate typeapplication/rss+xml titleRSS 2.0 hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/feed/ />link relpingback hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/xmlrpc.php /> !--if IE 6>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/includes/js/pngfix.js>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/includes/js/menu.js>/script>link relstylesheet typetext/css mediaall hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/css/ie6.css />!endif--> !--if IE 7>link relstylesheet typetext/css mediaall hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/css/ie7.css />!endif--> link reldns-prefetch href//georgialawreview.org />link reldns-prefetch href//s.w.org /> script typetext/javascript> window._wpemojiSettings {baseUrl:https:\/\/s.w.org\/images\/core\/emoji\/2\/72x72\/,ext:.png,svgUrl:https:\/\/s.w.org\/images\/core\/emoji\/2\/svg\/,svgExt:.svg,source:{concatemoji:https:\/\/georgialawreview.org\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-emoji-release.min.js?ver4.6.29}}; !function(e,o,t){var a,n,r;function i(e){var to.createElement(script);t.srce,t.typetext/javascript,o.getElementsByTagName(head)0.appendChild(t)}for(rArray(simple,flag,unicode8,diversity,unicode9),t.supports{everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},n0;nr.length;n++)t.supportsrnfunction(e){var t,a,no.createElement(canvas),rn.getContext&&n.getContext(2d),iString.fromCharCode;if(!r||!r.fillText)return!1;switch(r.textBaselinetop,r.font600 32px Arial,e){caseflag:return(r.fillText(i(55356,56806,55356,56826),0,0),n.toDataURL().length3e3)?!1:(r.clearRect(0,0,n.width,n.height),r.fillText(i(55356,57331,65039,8205,55356,57096),0,0),an.toDataURL(),r.clearRect(0,0,n.width,n.height),r.fillText(i(55356,57331,55356,57096),0,0),a!n.toDataURL());casediversity:return r.fillText(i(55356,57221),0,0),a(tr.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data)0+,+t1+,+t2+,+t3,r.fillText(i(55356,57221,55356,57343),0,0),a!(tr.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data)0+,+t1+,+t2+,+t3;casesimple:return r.fillText(i(55357,56835),0,0),0!r.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data0;caseunicode8:return r.fillText(i(55356,57135),0,0),0!r.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data0;caseunicode9:return r.fillText(i(55358,56631),0,0),0!r.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data0}return!1}(rn),t.supports.everythingt.supports.everything&&t.supportsrn,flag!rn&&(t.supports.everythingExceptFlagt.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&t.supportsrn);t.supports.everythingExceptFlagt.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&!t.supports.flag,t.DOMReady!1,t.readyCallbackfunction(){t.DOMReady!0},t.supports.everything||(afunction(){t.readyCallback()},o.addEventListener?(o.addEventListener(DOMContentLoaded,a,!1),e.addEventListener(load,a,!1)):(e.attachEvent(onload,a),o.attachEvent(onreadystatechange,function(){completeo.readyState&&t.readyCallback()})),(at.source||{}).concatemoji?i(a.concatemoji):a.wpemoji&&a.twemoji&&(i(a.twemoji),i(a.wpemoji)))}(window,document,window._wpemojiSettings); /script> style typetext/css>img.wp-smiley,img.emoji { display: inline !important; border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; height: 1em !important; width: 1em !important; margin: 0 .07em !important; vertical-align: -0.1em !important; background: none !important; padding: 0 !important;}/style>link relstylesheet idXForms-ADMIN-Dashboard-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/x-forms-express/css/dashboard.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />link relstylesheet idwa-admin-styles-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/x-forms-express/css/admin.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />link relstylesheet idXForms-UI-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/x-forms-express/css/ui.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />link relstylesheet iddefaults-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/x-forms-express/includes/Core/css/defaults.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />link relstylesheet idui-lightness-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/x-forms-express/includes/Core/css/themes/ui-lightness.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />link relstylesheet idmtf_css-css hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/plugins/mini-twitter-feed/minitwitter.css?ver4.6.29 typetext/css mediaall />script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js?ver1.12.4>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery-migrate.min.js?ver1.4.1>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.core.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.widget.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.mouse.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.resizable.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.position.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.sortable.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.draggable.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.droppable.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.accordion.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.slider.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.button.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.tooltip.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/backbone.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/includes/js/superfish.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/includes/js/woo_tabs.js?ver4.6.29>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/includes/js/loopedSlider.js?ver4.6.29>/script>link relhttps://api.w.org/ hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-json/ />link relEditURI typeapplication/rsd+xml titleRSD hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/xmlrpc.php?rsd />link relwlwmanifest typeapplication/wlwmanifest+xml hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/wlwmanifest.xml /> meta namegenerator contentWordPress 4.6.29 />!-- Theme version -->meta namegenerator contentHeadlines 3.1.3 />meta namegenerator contentWooFramework 5.5.2 />!-- Alt Stylesheet -->link hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/styles/default.css relstylesheet typetext/css />!-- Woo Shortcodes CSS -->link hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/functions/css/shortcodes.css relstylesheet typetext/css />!-- Custom Stylesheet -->link hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/custom.css relstylesheet typetext/css />link hrefhttps://fonts.googleapis.com/css?familyDroid+Sans relstylesheet typetext/css>style typetext/css>h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .cufon { font-family: Droid Sans, sans-serif !important; }/style>!--if lte IE 7>script typetext/javascript>jQuery(function() { var zIndexNumber 1000; jQuery(div).each(function() { jQuery(this).css(zIndex, zIndexNumber); zIndexNumber - 1; });});/script>!endif-->script typetext/javascript>jQuery(window).load(function(){ jQuery(#loopedSlider).loopedSlider({ autoStart: 6000, slidespeed: 600, autoHeight: true });});/script>/head>body classhome blog unknown alt-style-default>div idcontainer> div idtop> div idheader classcol-logo> div idlogo> a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org title>img classtitle srchttp://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/georgia_law_review_WEB_nobk-copy-300x123.png altGeorgia Law Review />/a> h1 classsite-title>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org>Georgia Law Review/a>/h1> span classsite-description>/span> /div>!-- /#logo --> /div>!-- /#header --> div idnavigation> div idcat-nav> div classcol-nav> ul idsecnav classfl>li idmenu-item-98 classmenu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom current-menu-item menu-item-home menu-item-98>a hrefhttp://georgialawreview.org>Home/a>/li>li idmenu-item-136 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-136>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/about-us/>About Us/a>ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-40 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-40>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/about/>History & Purpose/a>/li> li idmenu-item-485 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-485>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/masthead-2/>Masthead/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-2217 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-2217>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/masthead-2/vol-51-masthead/>Vol. 51 Masthead/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1526 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1526>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/masthead-2/vol-50-masthead/>Vol. 50 Masthead/a>/li> li idmenu-item-734 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-734>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/vol-49/>Vol. 49 Masthead/a>/li> li idmenu-item-479 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-479>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/masthead/>Vol. 48 Masthead/a>/li> li idmenu-item-497 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-497>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/vol-47-masthead/>Vol. 47 Masthead/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-41 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-41>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/subscription/>Subscription/a>/li> li idmenu-item-61 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-61>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/news/>News/a>/li>/ul>/li>li idmenu-item-1534 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-1534>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/glr_online/>GLR Online/a>ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1801 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1801>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/online-essays/>Online Essays/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1835 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-has-children menu-item-1835>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/>2016 Blog Posts/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-2137 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-2137>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/august-2016-2016/>August 2016/a>/li> li idmenu-item-2024 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-2024>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/april-2016/>April 2016/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1900 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1900>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/march-2016/>March 2016/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1856 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1856>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/february-2016/>February 2016/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1836 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1836>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2016/january-2016/>January 2016/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-1272 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-has-children menu-item-1272>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2015/>2015 Blog Posts/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1815 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1815>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2015/november2015/>November 2015/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1684 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1684>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2015/october-2015/>October 2015/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1633 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1633>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2015/september-2015/>September 2015/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1573 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1573>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/summer-2015-eleventh-circuit/>Summer 2015/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1429 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1429>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/february-2015/>February 2015/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1430 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1430>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/january-2015/>January 2015/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-1271 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-has-children menu-item-1271>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2014/>2014 Blog Posts/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1093 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-1093>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/december-2014/>December 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-999 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-999>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/november-2014/>November 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-820 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-820>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/october-2014/>October 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-785 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-785>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/september-2014/>September 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-753 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-753>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/august-2014/>August 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-352 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-352>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/march2014/>March 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-353 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-353>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/february2014/>February 2014/a>/li> li idmenu-item-346 classmenu-item menu-item-type-taxonomy menu-item-object-category menu-item-346>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/january2014/>January 2014/a>/li> /ul>/li>/ul>/li>li idmenu-item-17 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-17>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/past-issues/>Print Editions/a>ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1255 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-1255>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-49/>Volume 49/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1254 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1254>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-49-issue-1/>Volume 49, Issue 1/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-980 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-980>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-48/>Volume 48/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1259 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1259>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-48-issue-1/>Volume 48, Issue 1/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1258 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1258>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-48-issue-2/>Volume 48, Issue 2/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1257 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1257>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-48-issue-3/>Volume 48, Issue 3/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1256 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1256>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-48-issue-4/>Volume 48, Issue 4/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-33 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-33>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-47/>Volume 47/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1263 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1263>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-47-issue-1/>Volume 47, Issue 1/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1262 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1262>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-47-issue-2/>Volume 47, Issue 2/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1261 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1261>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-47-issue-3/>Volume 47, Issue 3/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1260 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1260>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-47-issue-4/>Volume 47, Issue 4/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-572 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-572>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-46/>Volume 46/a> ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-1267 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1267>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-46-issue-1/>Volume 46, Issue 1/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1266 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1266>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-46-issue-2/>Volume 46, Issue 2/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1265 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1265>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-46-issue-3/>Volume 46, Issue 3/a>/li> li idmenu-item-1264 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-1264>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-46-issue-4/>Volume 46, Issue 4/a>/li> /ul>/li> li idmenu-item-576 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-576>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/volume-45-2/>Volume 45/a>/li>/ul>/li>li idmenu-item-952 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-has-children menu-item-952>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/symposium-2015/>Symposium/a>ul classsub-menu> li idmenu-item-954 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-954>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/symposium-participants/>Symposium Participants/a>/li> li idmenu-item-951 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-951>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/schedule-of-events/>Schedule of Events/a>/li>/ul>/li>li idmenu-item-490 classmenu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-490>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/author-submission/>Author Submission/a>/li>/ul> div idsearch classfr> form methodget idsearchform actionhttps://georgialawreview.org> input typetext classfield names ids valueEnter keywords... onfocusif (this.value Enter keywords...) {this.value ;} onblurif (this.value ) {this.value Enter keywords...;} /> input classsubmit btn typeimage srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-search.png valueGo /> /form> /div>!-- /#search --> /div>!-- /.col-full --> /div>!-- /#cat-nav --> /div>!-- /#navigation --> /div>!--/#top--> div idcontent classcol-full> div idloopedSliderborder>div idloopedSlider classbox> div classcontainer> div classslides> div idslide-1 classslide> div classpost> a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/untapped-potential-how-georgias-beer-distribution-laws-stifle-the-craft-beer-industry/ titleUntapped Potential: How Georgia’s Beer Distribution Laws Stifle the Craft Beer Industry>img srchttp://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/front-of-law-school1-300x225-200x200.jpg alt width200 height200 classwoo-image thumbnail alignleft />/a> h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/untapped-potential-how-georgias-beer-distribution-laws-stifle-the-craft-beer-industry/ relbookmark titleUntapped Potential: How Georgia’s Beer Distribution Laws Stifle the Craft Beer Industry>Untapped Potential: How Georgia’s Beer Distribution Laws Stifle the Craft Beer Industry/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />February 16, 2017 /p> div classentry> p>Beer consumption in the United States is a $100 billion annual industry and is composed of five different kinds of drinks: domestic beer, imported beer, craft beer, hard ciders, and flavored malt beverages. Brewing goliaths Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller dominate the American beer industry, comprising over 75% of the market. While the domestic-beer category comprises the largest segment of the beer market, most of the top domestic brands have experienced a reduction in sales in recent years. Some of the reduction in sales has been attributed to consumers’ desire for more flavorful beer. Consequently, many consumers are turning to craft beer./p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/untapped-potential-how-georgias-beer-distribution-laws-stifle-the-craft-beer-industry/ titleUntapped Potential: How Georgia’s Beer Distribution Laws Stifle the Craft Beer Industry classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> /div> div idslide-2 classslide> div classpost> a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/what-did-the-supreme-court-hold-in-heffernan-v-city-of-paterson/ titleWhat Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson?>img srchttp://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/front-of-law-school1-300x225-200x200.jpg alt width200 height200 classwoo-image thumbnail alignleft />/a> h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/what-did-the-supreme-court-hold-in-heffernan-v-city-of-paterson/ relbookmark titleWhat Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson?>What Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson?/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />December 1, 2016 /p> div classentry> p>Reasoned opinions count as much or more than outcomes, partly because “reasoned response to reasoned argument is an essential aspect of the judicial process,” and partly because “the opinion has as one if not its major office to show how like cases are properly to be decided in the future.” Scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s reasons is called for not only when the result seems doubtful, but also when the result is intuitively appealing. Weak reasons may in the long run undermine a holding that deserves a better foundation than the Court has built for it, or at least distort and delay the elaboration of doctrine. When the intuition behind the holding deserves broader application than the Court’s reasons can support, an effort to identify more convincing reasons is an especially worthwhile project./p>p>Heffernan v. City of Paterson, illustrates the good result/weak reasons problem. /p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/what-did-the-supreme-court-hold-in-heffernan-v-city-of-paterson/ titleWhat Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson? classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> /div> div idslide-3 classslide> div classpost> a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-constitutionality-of-city-ordinance-prohibiting-picketing-denies-constitutionality-of-loitering-provision-in-ordinance/ titleEleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance>img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EleventhCircuitBuilding-200x200.jpg alt width200 height200 classwoo-image thumbnail alignleft />/a> h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-constitutionality-of-city-ordinance-prohibiting-picketing-denies-constitutionality-of-loitering-provision-in-ordinance/ relbookmark titleEleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance>Eleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />May 20, 2014 /p> div classentry> p>In Winnifred Bell v. City of Winter Park, Florida, No. 13-11499 (Mar. 20, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit decided whether the City of Winter Park’s Ordinance No. 2886-12, which generally prohibits targeted picketing within fifty feet of a residential dwelling, is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment freedom of speech. Comparing § 62-79 of the ordinance …/p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-constitutionality-of-city-ordinance-prohibiting-picketing-denies-constitutionality-of-loitering-provision-in-ordinance/ titleEleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> /div> /div>!-- /.slides --> /div>!-- /.container --> div classfeatured-nav> ul classpagination> li> a href#> img srchttp://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/front-of-law-school1-300x225-48x48.jpg alt width48 height48 classwoo-image thumbnail /> em classcufon>Untapped Potential: How Georgia’s Beer Distribution Laws Stifle the Craft Beer Industry/em> span classmeta>Beer consumption in the United States is a $100 billion annual industry and is.../span> /a> div styleclear:both>/div> /li> li> a href#> img srchttp://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/front-of-law-school1-300x225-48x48.jpg alt width48 height48 classwoo-image thumbnail /> em classcufon>What Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson?/em> span classmeta>Reasoned opinions count as much or more than outcomes, partly because.../span> /a> div styleclear:both>/div> /li> li> a href#> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EleventhCircuitBuilding-48x48.jpg alt width48 height48 classwoo-image thumbnail /> em classcufon>Eleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance/em> span classmeta>In Winnifred Bell v. City of Winter Park, Florida, No. 13-11499 (Mar. 20,.../span> /a> div styleclear:both>/div> /li> /ul> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /#loopedSlider -->/div>!-- /#loopedSliderborder --> div idmain classcol-left> div classbox> div classpost> !-- INSERT QUESTION MARKS FOR PHP TO WORK AGAIN -->php woo_get_image(image,$GLOBALSthumb_width,$GLOBALSthumb_height,thumbnail .$GLOBALSalign); > h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-holds-that-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-25-provides-a-court-discretion-to-extend-the-ninety-day-period-for-substitution-following-death-of-a-party/ relbookmark titleEleventh Circuit Holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Provides a Court Discretion to Extend the Ninety-Day Period for Substitution Following Death of a Party>Eleventh Circuit Holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Provides a Court Discretion to Extend the Ninety-Day Period for Substitution Following Death of a Party/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />January 23, 2018 /p> div classentry> p>Eleventh Circuit Holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Provides a Court Discretion to Extend the Ninety-Day Period for Substitution Following Death of a Party Lauren Giambalvo* The Eleventh Circuit recently held in Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corrs. and Rehab. Dep’t, No. 17-12280, 2017 WL 6629153, at *4 (December 29, 2017) that Federal Rule of …/p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-holds-that-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-25-provides-a-court-discretion-to-extend-the-ninety-day-period-for-substitution-following-death-of-a-party/ titleEleventh Circuit Holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Provides a Court Discretion to Extend the Ninety-Day Period for Substitution Following Death of a Party classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> div classpost-bottom> div classfl>span classcat>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017/ relcategory tag>2017/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017-blog-posts/ relcategory tag>2017 Blog Posts/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/2018/ relcategory tag>2018/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/ relcategory tag>Eleventh Circuit/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/uncategorized/ relcategory tag>Uncategorized/a>/span>/div> div classfr>/div> div classfix>/div> /div> /div>!-- /.box --> div classbox> div classpost> !-- INSERT QUESTION MARKS FOR PHP TO WORK AGAIN -->php woo_get_image(image,$GLOBALSthumb_width,$GLOBALSthumb_height,thumbnail .$GLOBALSalign); > h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-mini-miranda-warnings-and-maintains-that-individual-callers-identity-not-required-to-satisfy-fdcpa/ relbookmark titleEleventh Circuit Upholds Mini-Miranda Warnings and Maintains That Individual Caller’s Identity Not Required to Satisfy FDCPA>Eleventh Circuit Upholds Mini-Miranda Warnings and Maintains That Individual Caller’s Identity Not Required to Satisfy FDCPA/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />October 26, 2017 /p> div classentry> p>Eleventh Circuit Upholds Mini-Miranda Warnings in Initial Voicemail to Debtor, Maintains that Individual Caller’s Identity Not Required to Satisfy Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gilbert Oladeinbo* Recently, in Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 16-17126 (11th Cir. 2017), the Eleventh Circuit determined two questions of interpretation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). First, …/p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-mini-miranda-warnings-and-maintains-that-individual-callers-identity-not-required-to-satisfy-fdcpa/ titleEleventh Circuit Upholds Mini-Miranda Warnings and Maintains That Individual Caller’s Identity Not Required to Satisfy FDCPA classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> div classpost-bottom> div classfl>span classcat>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017/ relcategory tag>2017/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017-blog-posts/ relcategory tag>2017 Blog Posts/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/ relcategory tag>Eleventh Circuit/a>/span>/div> div classfr>/div> div classfix>/div> /div> /div>!-- /.box --> div classbox> div classpost> !-- INSERT QUESTION MARKS FOR PHP TO WORK AGAIN -->php woo_get_image(image,$GLOBALSthumb_width,$GLOBALSthumb_height,thumbnail .$GLOBALSalign); > h2 classtitle>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-rules-number-of-victims-sentencing-enhancement-inapplicable-to-single-package-theft/ relbookmark titleEleventh Circuit Rules Number-of-Victims Sentencing Enhancement Inapplicable to Single-Package Theft>Eleventh Circuit Rules Number-of-Victims Sentencing Enhancement Inapplicable to Single-Package Theft/a>/h2> p classpost-meta> img srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/themes/headlines-child/images/ico-time.png alt />October 4, 2017 /p> div classentry> p>Eleventh Circuit Rules Number-of-Victims Sentencing Enhancement Inapplicable to Single-Package Theft Michael Ackerman* On April 23, 2016, Jhonathan Tejas approached a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) delivery vehicle and requested a package from the mail carrier. United States v. Tejas, No. 16-16336, 2017 WL 3611975, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017). When the carrier refused, …/p>span classread-more>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-rules-number-of-victims-sentencing-enhancement-inapplicable-to-single-package-theft/ titleEleventh Circuit Rules Number-of-Victims Sentencing Enhancement Inapplicable to Single-Package Theft classbtn>Read more/a>/span> /div> div classfix>/div> /div>!-- /.post --> div classpost-bottom> div classfl>span classcat>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017/ relcategory tag>2017/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/2017-blog-posts/ relcategory tag>2017 Blog Posts/a>, a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/category/eleventh-circuit/ relcategory tag>Eleventh Circuit/a>/span>/div> div classfr>/div> div classfix>/div> /div> /div>!-- /.box --> div classmore_entries> div classfl>/div> div classfr>a hrefhttps://georgialawreview.org/page/2/ >Older Entries/a>/div> br classfix /> /div> /div>!-- /#main --> div idsidebar classcol-right> !-- Widgetized Sidebar --> div idtext-2 classwidget widget_text>h3>Twitter/h3> div classtextwidget>a classtwitter-timeline height450px data-dnttrue hrefhttps://twitter.com/GaLRev data-widget-id362292713271484416>Tweets by @GaLRev/a>script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjsd.getElementsByTagName(s)0,p/^http:/.test(d.location)?http:https;if(!d.getElementById(id)){jsd.createElement(s);js.idid;js.srcp+://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,script,twitter-wjs);/script>/div> /div> /div>!-- /#sidebar --> /div>!-- /#content --> !-- Footer Widget Area Starts --> div idfooter-widgets> div classcontainer col-full> div classblock> /div> div classblock> /div> div classblock last> /div> div classfix>/div> /div> /div> !-- Footer Widget Area Ends --> div idfooter> div classcol-full> div idcopyright classcol-left> p>© 2024 Georgia Law Review. All Rights Reserved./p> /div> /div> /div> !-- footer Ends --> /div>!-- /#container -->script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjsd.getElementsByTagName(s)0,p/^http:/.test(d.location)?http:https;if(!d.getElementById(id)){jsd.createElement(s);js.idid;js.srcp+://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,script,twitter-wjs);/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/core.min.js?ver1.11.4>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/widget.min.js?ver1.11.4>/script>script typetext/javascript srchttps://georgialawreview.org/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js?ver4.6.29>/script>/body>/html>script> (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){iGoogleAnalyticsObjectr;irir||function(){ (ir.qir.q||).push(arguments)},ir.l1*new Date();as.createElement(o), ms.getElementsByTagName(o)0;a.async1;a.srcg;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,script,//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js,ga); ga(create, UA-43609212-1, georgialawreview.org); ga(send, pageview);/script>
View on OTX
|
View on ThreatMiner
Please enable JavaScript to view the
comments powered by Disqus.
Data with thanks to
AlienVault OTX
,
VirusTotal
,
Malwr
and
others
. [
Sitemap
]