Search for: "Grant v. People" Results 2941 - 2960 of 16,997
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Matter of Fishman, 22 A.D.3d 100, 2005 NYSlipOp 06802 Matter of Calonge v Calonge, 52 AD3d 1111, 2008 NYSlipOp 05630; Matter of Marino, 73 A.D.3d 5, 2010 NYSlipOp 01800; Matter of McKenzie, 177 AD3d 134, 2019 NYSlipOp 06729; People v Jenkins, 55 Misc 3d 1207(A), 2017 NYSlipOp 50449(U); and People v Williams, 20 AD3d 72, 2005 NYSlipOp 04317. ** Respondent stipulated that [1] he stands… [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 7:08 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
“Yesterday, open statements were heard in the case of The People of the State of New York v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 11:13 am by Jeralyn
The California Supreme Court today in a much-anticipated decision, People v. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 5:30 am
Dolphy v Mantello, No. 03-2738-pr (2d Cir. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am by Dennis Crouch
They “dispose of public rights held by the government on behalf of the people. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 9:00 pm
Superior Court (Kroger Co.), S141677 People v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 9:43 am
Even though I'm almost always on the side of granting such requests when made. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:50 am by Lisa R. Pruitt
  Hunter's headline speaks volumes, "Food security v energy security:  land use conflict and the law. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Noting the decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, the Appellate Division observed that "[a] defendant has the right at common law and under the State Constitution to be tried in the county where the crime was committed unless the Legislature has provided otherwise". [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 3:10 pm by Samuel Sorich
The trial court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment, but Division One reversed the trial court’s ruling. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 6:59 pm by Brian Shiffrin
 The Court of Appeals, in People v Clermont (2013 NY Slip Op 06806 [10/22/13]) the defense suppression motion said defendant had been stopped due to an MVA when no car was involved. [read post]