Search for: "People v. Ramirez"
Results 181 - 200
of 240
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2011, 5:10 am
People v Hunter, 2011 NY Slip Op 4542, 2011 N.Y. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:51 am
"Criminal justice expert Kent Scheidegger predicts that vast numbers of people who commit property crimes, such as car thieves, will no longer be imprisoned—so if you live in California, 'don't bother investing much in a car. [read post]
10 May 2011, 12:55 pm
Both involve minors (this one, a 14-year old, and in Ramirez a 16-year old). [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm
Super. 1987); Ramirez v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:45 pm
With Justice Ramirez writing the majority opinion and Justice Miller dissenting.See who you agree with. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 10:40 am
Sorrel v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 5:01 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Briefly, courts have adopted the learned intermediary rule because:Warnings go to physicians because they are the only people who know both a particular patient’s medical history as well as the risk/benefit profile of the drug/device being prescribed.Limiting warning duties to physicians makes the common law consistent with warning duties imposed by the FDA.Routing prescription drug/device information through the doctor preserves the physician/patient relationship from outside… [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 11:37 am
Pedro Ramirez It may or may not have been a coincidence. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
PEOPLE v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:00 am
The trial court erred by proceeding with trial without determining whether Disandro’s absence was both “knowing and voluntary,” Justice Manuel Ramirez wrote in People v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
PEOPLE v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 6:31 am
Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 562-63, 124 S. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 5:30 am
Ramirez v. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 6:51 pm
People v. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 6:10 am
In United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 10:09 am
But some people. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 11:07 am
And in United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 8:31 am
The November 10, 2009 opinion in Ramirez v. [read post]
