Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Bedford"
Results 1 - 20
of 162
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
Today represents Part 2A which covers Sections I-V of Chief Justice Crampton’s decision. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 4:33 pm
VB v. [read post]
28 Oct 2023, 3:24 pm
Troops, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 9:25 am
Co. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
The “governed”—the American people (“We the people”)—accept the system and process. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 9:29 am
The new law came in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII) (“Bedford”) which found that the previous laws prohibiting brothels, public communication for the purpose of prostitution and living on the profits of prostitution unconstitutional. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 10:42 am
Bedford changed much of the law surrounding prostitution and sex offences, but solicitation was mostly unaffected. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 5:01 am
See Rowan v. [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
See Snyder v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 7:04 am
How about people just walking by in groups but without signs? [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 5:30 am
The case, Concepcion v. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 10:04 am
, three detectives from the New Bedford police department’s gang unit observed a sedan making an improper lane change, prompting them to activate their lights and follow the vehicle. [read post]
21 Nov 2021, 6:48 pm
Bedford. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 5:06 am
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing [*3]the witnesses” (US Bank N.A. v Pierre, 189 AD3d 1309, 1310 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of… [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 2:17 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 6:11 am
= = = = = THOMPSON v. [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am
Duke of Bedford v Ellis [1901] AC 1 held that the damage did not need to be exactly the same – the rule should be flexible in order to do justice. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 7:52 am
AWQC’s submissions on this point included the following: Unlike Warby J, the Court of Appeal disregarded binding case law which restricts the availability of representative actions for damages (notably Duke of Bedford v Ellis [1901] AC 1 and Markt & Co. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 8:00 am
Davis v. [read post]
