Search for: "People v Challenger"
Results 2501 - 2520
of 18,773
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2019, 1:41 pm
See Nken v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 6:24 am
Many people assume a criminal case ends upon conviction and sentencing. [read post]
29 May 2015, 10:17 am
Pear’s piece has provoked an ongoing avalanche of fervid reactions from both friends and foes of the King v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:40 pm
”); United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 8:00 am
In Skinner v. [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 2:03 am
The partisan gerrymandering proposal asks courts to make it easier for the people to have a say in the districting process. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 5:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 2:20 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 8:38 pm
State Public Service Comm’n v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 4:16 am
Yesterday the court heard argument in Nielsen v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 11:43 am
” The Project on Fair Representation is also behind the affirmative action challenge that the Supreme Court has decided to hear next term: Fisher v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm
Conservation Comm'n v. [read post]
6 May 2014, 8:13 am
Market America v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 5:33 am
But it is a choice the people of Alabama have made, and nothing [in] the Constitution of the United States forbids it. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:26 am
(People v. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 5:56 am
” Briefly: At Fortune, Roger Parloff previews next week’s oral arguments in Alice Corporation v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 8:00 am
Supreme Court prepares to hear a challenge to Arizona’s law, SB 1070. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:46 am
Newman v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 7:39 am
In People v. [read post]
7 Mar 2010, 4:00 pm
Please join me as we take a trip deep into the weeds.Fact - the People are required to serve a 710.30 notice when they intend to use statements of the defendant, which meet other criteria which will not be enumerated here.Fact - Sometimes the People do not serve a 710.30 notice as to some or all statements meeting those criteria.Fact - The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has ruled that using such statements for the purpose of impeachment is perfectly okay even so… [read post]
