Search for: "Case v. People" Results 2401 - 2420 of 51,974
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2013, 12:14 pm by Graham Smith
  He likened Google to the owner of a wall on which people chose to inscribe graffiti, for which the owner was not responsible. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 12:14 pm
In 2006 the Michigan Supreme Court changed the law to limit children and incompent people (like someone in a coma) from collecting No-Fault benefits from their own insurance company in the case of Cameron v Auto Club. [read post]
The material witness statute represents a dramatic departure to the rule, allowing the arrest of uncharged, innocent, even cooperative people. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 5:03 am
Juries always believe these stories and lawyers don't believe in their clients so the case will get pled out and no one will be the wiser. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
It was also invoked in a case in 1942, Skinner v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 11:50 am by Steve Bainbridge
Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 6:57 pm by Donald Thompson
Extending the ability to belatedly prosecute cases where defendants are identifiable by DNA only, in People v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 6:40 pm by Rick Pildes
As Bobby notes, the recently announced criminal prosecution of Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, captured overseas almost three months ago by U.S. military forces, could be an important test of an emerging hybrid model for handling alleged terrorism cases that offers an alternative to the stark war v. crime dichotomy. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
Following the order, in 2012, Serafin became involved with Kolbe House, a care home for elderly Polish people, as a handyman. [read post]
6 May 2021, 4:26 pm by INFORRM
The Court confirmed that the trial judge was correct to hold that such allegations would tend to have a substantial adverse effect (Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Limited [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) [98]) on the way that people would treat Mr Millet. [read post]