Search for: "Parker v. People"
Results 221 - 240
of 613
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm
But when a state legislature regulates its economy in an anticompetitive way, it’s exempt from antitrust law: in Parker v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 11:25 am
Video Software Dealers Association and Ortiz v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 8:54 am
This instruction was required under the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 4:04 pm
(The title , which I have used in various forms before, recalls J Jonah Jameson, the irascible boss of Peter Parker aka SpiderMan whom JJJ of course famously detested. [read post]
26 May 2014, 12:00 pm
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67-68 (1972); Parker v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 5:50 am
That case, U.S. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 6:38 am
Parker, 2010 U.S. [read post]
5 May 2014, 5:17 am
At Crooks and Liars, Parker Higgins focuses on comments made by Chief Justice John Roberts during the oral argument in the cellphone privacy cases, in which the Chief Justice expressed skepticism that many law-abiding people carry more than one cellphone. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 6:50 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:15 am
Parker (1954). [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 6:31 am
The Court of Appeals (Parker, Livingston and Chin) notes that plaintiff a full opportunity to litigate this issue in state court. [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 6:37 am
The defendant loses the habeas petition.The case is Wilson v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 6:35 am
The Court of Appeals (Nathan and Parker) rejects these arguments and the law stands.The case is Restaurant Law Center v. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 10:18 am
Nebraska v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:55 pm
R (JG and MB ) v. [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 10:11 am
Tex. 2017); Parker v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:51 am
Parker, 425 F.3d 250, 268 (6th Cir. 2005) (Martin, J., dissenting). [read post]
3 May 2017, 10:48 am
Chapter 1: The Complaint In Brown v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:07 am
After that hearing, at which scientific literature was introduced and doctors for both the planitiffs and defendants testified, Justice Mayer ruled that plaintiffs would not be allowed to offer expert testimony at trial in support of their MCS claims:In New York, evidence based on novel scientific theories or techniques is considered admissible only upon a showing of general acceptance within the relevant scientific community (People v Carrieri, 49 AD3d 660, 854 NYS2d 427 [2d Dept… [read post]
