Search for: "People v. Stevens" Results 261 - 280 of 2,929
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2016, 6:22 am by Stephen Wermiel
Among targets of comments by Stevens are: — McCutcheon v. [read post]
7 May 2008, 12:02 am
Superior Court (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 48, 52-53; see also Stevens v. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 6:16 am
  But even I have to take pause when seeing a comparison of Kimbough to Brown v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 4:08 pm by Matt Cameron
We’re still only a few hours out from the release of today’s Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 9:16 am by Mary Whisner
“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice Stevens wrote.Padilla v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:06 am by Michael Dorf
Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School; he blogs at Dorf on Law. [read post]
6 May 2010, 7:02 am by Erin Miller
ACSblog highlights a recent American Constitution Society issue brief on state laws that bar people with criminal records from voting, in light of the Court’s recent call for the views of the Solicitor General in Simmons v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 6:24 am by James Bickford
Justice Stevens told 60 Minutes that the Court’s decision to intervene in Bush v. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:00 am by Catherine Morris
Background of the Donziger case The following background summary is drawn from the executive summary of the IMPETUS report: (Steven Donziger) The criminal contempt charges against Steven Donziger arose in the context of his work as a lawyer representing Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Ecuador beginning in 1993. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 6:14 pm by Gideon
In 2002, in the landmark decision Atkins v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 3:20 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Stevens, 44 AD3d 882 [2007]). [read post]