Search for: "People v Person"
Results 2881 - 2900
of 31,543
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2012, 9:51 pm
Kyllo v. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 9:18 am
” Lord Sumption distinguished the facts of Mr Catt’s appeal from those in MM v United Kingdom, and the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, in that: “[t]here has been no disclosure to third parties, and the prospect of future disclosure is limited by comprehensive restrictions. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 11:50 am
–Boston v. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 11:54 am
Walker imagines suing to force an Article V convention because he had a strong, particularized personal interest in congressional action. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 4:02 pm
Next the Court clarifies that the taxation data of 1.2 million natural persons were made public by the applicant media, and that most of the data concerned private persons, and only “very few, were individuals with a high net income, public figures or well-known personalities within the meaning of the Court’s case-law”. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 11:00 am
With all these people using the product it was inevitable that we would see some misuse, including the recent “Zoom Bomb” issues. [read post]
Case Law, Strasbourg: Lykin v. Ukraine, Free speech and elected officials – Ed Klaris & Alexia Bedat
16 Jan 2017, 4:35 pm
On 12 January 2017, the Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in the case of Lykin v Ukraine ([2017] ECHR 17), providing a timely reminder that freedom of political expression under Article 10 can trump reputation. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 12:41 pm
" And in Trump v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 5:05 am
" People v. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 8:02 am
People v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm
Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 12:11 pm
On July 27, 2012, the Court decided People v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 1:46 pm
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Bohomme v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 12:00 pm
Holmes v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 3:34 pm
As a corollary to the right to criminal counsel, non-English speaking individuals have the right to an interpreter to enable them to participate meaningfully in their trial and assist in their own defense (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, 274 [1970]; People v Perez, 198 AD2d 446, 447 [1993]; People v De Armas, 106 AD2d 659). [read post]
Gang Cases Update – People v. Rodriguez (California Supremes Bring Presents, Not Coal For Christmas)
8 Jan 2013, 9:47 pm
Just one month later, the Fourth Appellate District handed down the case of People v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 11:42 pm
People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 6:29 am
Milward v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
In the recent decision of Grant v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 7:07 am
In Robinson v. [read post]
