Search for: "People v. Stewart (2000)" Results 1 - 20 of 97
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2024, 1:24 pm by Joseph L. Hyde
Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 505 (2000) (sanctioning use of the term vaginal intercourse instead of ravish and carnally know), State v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am by centerforartlaw
The companies, Midjourney est. 2021, Stability AI est. 2019, and DeviantArt est. 2000, create platforms that produce AI-generated art in a matter of seconds in response to users’ custom text prompts and directives. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 7:23 am by Amy Howe
Shortly after taking office, he had an opportunity to do that, with Justice Potter Stewart’s announcement in June 1981 that he would retire in early July. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 8:30 am by Guest Author
Instances might be cited, in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes …. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 12:37 am by Frank Cranmer
Revd Paul Williamson in court again In July 1997, the Revd Paul Williamson was made the subject of a Civil Proceedings Order as a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.42(1A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings), primarily as a result of a series of proceedings arising from his opposition to the ordination of women: see R v HM Attorney-General ex parte Reverend Paul Stewart Williamson [1997] EWHC Admin 691. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:25 am by INFORRM
Canada On 20 March 2023, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the plaintiffs to pay the reasonable costs of the defendant on a full indemnity basis, in the case of Mawhinney v Stewart, 2023 BCSC 419, [read post]
4 Mar 2023, 4:38 am by SHG
Miller, Jr. (2000) 0-7388-3464-5 Xlibris Corp. [read post]
23 May 2021, 3:24 pm by Giles Peaker
RRO made, in view of Vadamalayan v Stewart and Others (2020) UKUT 183 (LC) on the full rent starting point, for £4163.50 – after a £150 deduction for utility costs. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am by Michael Douglas
By Michael Douglas and Mhairi Stewart Andrew Bell is a leader of private international law in Australia. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm by Ronald Collins
Bickel’s account – essentially, to emphasize the principles underlying the 14th Amendment and its capacity for growth, rather than how people at the time understood it – is of a piece with one of the ways originalists try to save their approach from generating unacceptable conclusions. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:00 am by INFORRM
The test to be applied to national security cases is, as Stone points out, the Pentagon Papers version of the clear and present danger test (per Stewart “direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people”). [read post]