Search for: "People v. Wells (1983)" Results 1 - 20 of 1,001
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2012, 8:09 am by James Eckert
  Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational fact finder could conclude that defendant acquired the video and exercised control over it and the images (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 2:05 pm
We recently rejected a similar argument in People v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 1:36 pm by Lucy Series
Injuries can be psychiatric as well as physical, but the prosecution will need to provide medical evidence of this (R v Fook, 1994). [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 4:44 pm by INFORRM
The Judge refused the claimant’s (Mr Andrew Cooper) application for an injunction under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the RoPA”), which sought to prevent the republication of a political advert published on West Midlands Labour social media pages regarding the claimant, who was at the time a Conservative candidate for the Tamworth by-election (held on 19 October 2023). [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 11:35 am
Think about whether you agree.I have a separate thought about post-hoc conclusions in these search and seizure cases that I'll briefly share as well. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 11:41 am
You'll know where this case is going even when I just recite the first paragraphs of the statement of facts:"In 1983, eight-year-old James K. met defendant at the Santa Monica Pier. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 9:22 am by Howard M. Wasserman
ShareTuesday’s argument in Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 8:14 am
This § 1983 action now also seeks to recover monies paid into the state court (by naming the clerk of the court) - and another § 1983 lawsuit as well against the lienholder. [read post]