Search for: "People v. Black (1985)" Results 181 - 193 of 193
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2012, 2:31 am by tekEditor
Preamble Since the announcements of the iPhone and Microsoft's Surface (both in 2007),  an especially large number of people have asked me about multi-touch. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 9:03 am by Schachtman
  With fear and trembling, and sometimes sickness not quite unto death, federal and state judges, and lawyers on both sides of the “v,” must now do more than attack, defend, and evaluate expert witnesses on simplistic surrogates for the truth, such as personal bias or qualifications. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 5:05 am by David W.S. Lieberman
Greber, 760 F.2d 68 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 988 (1985). [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:18 am by Terry Hart
One of the earliest and most influential cases to enunciate this doctrine was Pope v. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm by admin
Downtown News Online, March 26, 2010 Operators of the Downtown Standard hotel have pleaded guilty to violating federal environmental law following a Jan. 18 incident that caused a street closure and sickened several people in a subway station. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 1:12 pm by Javier Dominguez
Admitted to the Florida Bar in 1985, Prieto is a member of multiple other Bars including the Cuban-American Bar Association, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
Over the last few months, we here at Abnormal Use have corresponded regularly with our friends at the Drug and Device Law blog, most notably Steve McConnell and Jim Beck, about both the law and popular culture. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:12 am
AI Index: AMR 51/087/2007 When a capital defendant seeks to circumvent procedures necessary to ensure the propriety of his conviction and sentence, he does not ask the State to permit him to take his own life. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]