Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Smith" Results 281 - 300 of 3,488
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2012, 4:06 pm by Ron Skolrood
Posted by Ron SkolroodOn June 15, 2012, Madam Justice Lynn Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court released her much anticipated reasons for judgment in Carter v. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 1:21 am by INFORRM
The full 742 page, 2618 paragraph judgment, Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555, was published  on 5 June 2023. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 4:47 pm by Brian Shiffrin
People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]).People v Kolupa, __ NY3d __, 2009 NY Slip Op 06586 [September 22, 2009].Would you want to be the attorney calling Mr. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 9:01 pm by Leslie C. Griffin and Marci A. Hamilton
That’s the rule that the Supreme Court correctly upheld in its free exercise case, Smith.Most people think an earlier Court case, Sherbert v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 9:54 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Hannum Conviction for Cyberstalking & Revenge Porn Survives First Amendment Challenge Contacting a Person’s Facebook Friends Isn’t Stalking–People v. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 6:15 am by Brian Shiffrin
We therefore substitute our own discretion, " even in the absence of an abuse [of discretion],' " and we modify the order by determining that defendant is a level two risk (People v Smith, 30 AD3d 1070, 1071, quoting Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 224; see People v Brewer, 63 AD3d 1604). [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 12:55 am
Lamar Smith, Karl Rove claims he had nothing to do with the prosecution of Don Siegelman. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 8:23 pm by Donald Thompson
 Not until counsel has been “repeatedly unconscious through not insubstantial portions” of even capital murder trials will prejudice to the defendant will be presumed (see, Muniz v Smith, 647 F3d 619 [6th Cir 2011]; Burdine v Johnson, 262 F3d 336, 340-41 [5th Cir 2001]; Tippins v Walker, 77 F3d 682, 685 [2nd Cir 1996]). [read post]