Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Johnson"
Results 181 - 200
of 2,498
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2012, 11:41 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 11:34 am
VanderKooi and Johnson v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:00 pm
In reviewing the charge for legal sufficiency, "each case is fact specific" (Johnson, 95 NY2d at 373) and the allegations must be analyzed in the context of "the whole incident" (Hogle, 18 Misc 3d at 871, citing People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769, 776 [1997]). [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 4:10 am
A consent decree (full text) was entered this week in Johnson v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 9:56 am
” The Court in Dimaya was following up on their 2015 opinion in Johnson v. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 4:17 pm
”For the complaint:https://www.eff.org/document/johnson-v-proctorio-complaintFor more on proctoring surveillance:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/proctoring-apps-subject-students-unnecessary-surveillance Contact: CaraGaglianoStaff Attorneycara@eff.org [read post]
26 May 2008, 8:26 am
People v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 7:54 am
Co. v.. [read post]
25 May 2015, 9:00 pm
In reviewing the charge for legal sufficiency, “each case is fact specific” (Johnson, 95 NY2d at 373) and the allegations must be analyzed in the context of “the whole incident” (Hogle, 18 Misc 3d at 871, citing People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769, 776 [1997]). [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 5:47 am
People v. [read post]
31 Oct 2006, 11:43 am
Johnson, No. 05-1444, remands based on a petition for rehearing, which was held in abeyance based on the SCOTUS's decision in Rapanos v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
See, e.g., Johnson v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:09 am
§ 924(c), applying the reasoning of two prior High Court cases on this topic, Johnson v. [read post]
North Florida Court Did Not Err in Ending Supervised Release for Domestic Violence – U.S. v. Johnson
9 May 2012, 7:09 am
That was the case in United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
And as if that wasn't enough, many of the people in gover [read post]
19 Nov 2016, 12:01 am
In Beecher v. [read post]
13 Jan 2024, 7:24 am
The court of appeals reasoned that, just as the city could not punish someone for their status – being homeless – it also could not punish them for conduct 'that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.'"Writes Amy Howe, at SCOTUSblog.Here's the 9th Circuit opinion: Johnson v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 4:30 am
Johnson v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 7:47 am
Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 9:56 am
” The Court in Dimaya was following up on their 2015 opinion in Johnson v. [read post]
