Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Monroe"
Results 241 - 260
of 350
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2011, 6:47 pm
byJim Eckert, Esq.Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderSometimes it doesn't help if the other side can see why you're doing what you're doing. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 1:29 pm
byJill PapernoSecond Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderIn People v Fernandez (2011 NY Slip Op 04540 [6/2/11]) the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court improperly deprived the defendant of his right to present testimony that the complainant had a bad reputation in the community for truth and veracity. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 12:00 pm
The Monroe County IDA and Rochester Gas & Electric also provided incentives to the company for the Rochester GMCH project. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 7:16 pm
People v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:58 am
People v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
The latest case from Monroe County was no exception.In Stout v. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
BRADY OUTLINE (March 23, 2011)by Jill Paperno, Special Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderBRADY V. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 10:03 am
DuBrin, Special Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderThe Court of Appeals has just decided an important decision on what a defendant must do to preserve his claim that a period of unreadiness is not excludable from the 30.30 calculation. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:31 am
This comes from the Tennessee Court of Appeals in State v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 5:34 am
County of Monroe, 2011 WL 534047 (February 17, 2011). [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 4:26 pm
According to the Fourth Department in People v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 4:36 pm
DuBrin,Special Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderIn People v Prindle (_NY3d_, 2011 NY Slip Op 01320 [2/22/11]) Mr. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 4:24 pm
DuBrin, Special Assistant Monroe County Public DefenderIn People v Farkas (_NY_, 2011 NY Slip Op 01318 [2/22/11]), the Court of Appeals decided a very important 30.30 case - against the defendant- but in so ruling confirmed principles that will often help defendants seeking to move to dismiss a superseding accusatory on 30.30 grounds. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:42 pm
XVI; Brushaber v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:20 am
The Marilyn Monroe case exemplified this as her domicile was held to be that of New York and not of the claimed California so she lost the right of publicity which had earned her at least $30 million before she died. [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:48 pm
Kennedy v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 12:20 am
Many people have asked us about the status of the “source code” motions in Hillsborough County. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 5:43 am
Monroe U.S. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 9:09 am
Romantics v. [read post]
