Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Monroe"
Results 281 - 300
of 350
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2009, 8:50 am
The two cases before the court were Godfrey v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:48 pm
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in State of Connecticut v. [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 6:59 pm
DuBrin, Special Assistant Monroe County Public Defender [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 1:22 pm
Written by Jim Eckert, Assistant Monroe County Public Defender [read post]
2 Aug 2009, 8:14 pm
In B.S. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 11:17 pm
Then, in the 1960s, the Supreme Court awoke Section 1983 from hibernation - in Monroe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 12:03 pm
The other, and less avoidable, problem is that many people are placing CC licenses on works they don’t own. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 12:03 pm
The other, and less avoidable, problem is that many people are placing CC licenses on works they don’t own. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 2:15 pm
In People of the State of Illinois v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 12:35 pm
DuBrin, Special Assistant Monroe County Public Defender [read post]
14 May 2009, 1:53 pm
" (Waller v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 5:25 am
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 9:58 am
People v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 9:18 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 2:45 pm
Div. 1957), Innes v. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 8:54 am
Another example can be found in the dissenting opinion of Balla v. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 5:00 pm
In People v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 7:31 pm
Under these circumstances, when the time period charged, namely seven months, approaches the nine-month period found to be per se unreasonable in People v Beauchamp (74 NY2d 639; see People v Sedlock, 8 NY3d at 538), the People are subjected to "proportionally heightened scrutiny" as to whether their inability to provide more precise times is justified (id at 539). [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 9:34 am
") (citations omitted); see also People v. [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 1:50 am
C.M. v. [read post]
