Search for: "Conte v. State"
Results 301 - 320
of 550
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jan 2014, 7:01 am
Cont’l Cas. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 3:38 pm
Relying on State v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:13 pm
In Riley v County of Broome, Section 1104 was put in place in 1957 as part of what is now title VII of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which was intended to create a uniform set of traffic regulations, or the rules of the road to update and replace the former traffic regulations, and bring them into conformance with the Uniform Vehicle Code adopted in other states. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 2:42 pm
As the Court of Appeals has explained, where a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile has committed a traffic violation, a stop does not violate the state or federal constitutions and neither the primary motivation of the officer nor a determination of what a reasonable traffic officer would have done under the circumstances is relevant akin to People v Robinson and Whren v United States. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 1:28 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:21 am
You know the plaintiff’s lawyer is trying to advance a broader tactic of expanding the “innovator liability” holding from the Conte California case to other state courts. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:03 pm
In Matter of State of New York v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 3:17 pm
As held in People v Lewis, People v Ventimiglia, People v Santarelli and People v Allweiss, it is elementary that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal or immoral conduct is inadmissible if it cannot logically be linked to some specific material issue in the case. [read post]
29 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm
The clinical assessment stated that defendant met the full criteria for a diagnosis of pedophilia under DSM IV-302.20. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 4:15 pm
Otherwise, an offender could avoid sex offender registration requirements simply by moving his or her state of residence, thereby frustrating the purpose behind sex offender registration laws as in People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 2:56 pm
New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., and People v. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 2:44 pm
To Be cont... [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 1:36 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 1:32 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 1:09 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 4:08 pm
To Be cont.... [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 4:06 pm
Co. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:16 am
June. 13, 2013), even though the Alabama Supreme Court thankfully agreed to reconsider the case, Weeks was such a terrible ruling – the only state high court to recognize innovator drug liability (which we also call “Conte”) where the innovator didn’t even sell the product that the plaintiff used − that we give it our #5 spot even after the reconsideration. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 4:02 pm
To Be Cont.... [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 12:51 pm
United States, Kingsley Books v. [read post]
