Search for: "Defendant Doe 1"
Results 221 - 240
of 45,937
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2016, 9:53 am
Early last week the Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the First Department which held that the rule of law announced in People v Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions (People v Smith, 132 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2015]) -- a decision I had labeled a "huge success for the criminal defense bar" in an October blog post.In People v Catu, the New York Court of Appeals held that the court must advise a defendant of the post-release supervision (PRS) component… [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 8:00 am
Before trial, the parties settled for the defendant’s $1 million insurance policy limits. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 6:15 am
Vega does not compel a contrary result. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
Defendant sought a ton of information about the investigative techniques used against him to potentially challenge the searches, and the court decides that Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) does not require the government to create information not already in existence. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 12:24 pm
Unlike the defendant in Strickler, Appellee herein had been subjected to a traffic stop. [read post]
15 Feb 2022, 9:48 am
Regarding the third element, the court noted that BIPA, including its exceptions, does not restrict a particular viewpoint, nor does it target public discussion of an entire topic. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
The Defendants filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff's infringement contentions, including their contentions under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE"), for failing to comply with the Local Patent Rules ("P.R. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 1:40 am
How does it generally work? [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 1:40 am
How does it generally work? [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 10:09 am
Factual Background The plaintiff, Charles Vincent, was a passenger in a car driven by his friend, John McLaughlin, who had been drinking at a party hosted by the defendant, John Doe #1. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 10:50 pm
Defendant’s BAC level for DUI was obtained in violation of HIPAA since a trial subpoena was issued by the clerk without a court order, but the court refuses to suppress the evidence as a result because HIPAA does not require it. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 9:08 pm
Does 1-4. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 5:55 am
G.L.c 94C section 1. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 3:15 am
Does 1-101, No. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 5:10 pm
Defendant has certainly asserted that this is so, which is sufficient for a prima facie case under the second prong of Strickland, but the inquiry does not end there.... [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 4:07 am
Accordingly, the Court finds that the good faith exception does not apply. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 8:29 am
Mr Justice Nugee concluded that decisions of the General Court are binding on the English High Court by virtue of Section 3(1) and Schedule 1 of the European Communities Act 1972 and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the European Union [38]. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 2:30 pm
§ 3553(f )(1) The Court answered that question "yes," holding that a defendant has to check every box to lose eligibility. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 10:34 am
Does 1-19, the case targeting George Washington University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the Court's ex parte discovery order.April 28, 2008, order and opinion denying motion to vacate ex parte discovery order* (-- F. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:08 am
Video of the stop confirms that defendant consented to a dog sniff and believed he was free to go. [read post]
