Search for: "People v. Cross"
Results 301 - 320
of 5,480
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2014, 10:33 am
Case citation: Jones v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
Their position was analogous to that of the claimant in Burnip v Birmingham City Council, who herself required overnight care. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:45 am
From the case Commil v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 12:02 pm
In Resch v. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 5:09 am
In Church of the Holy Cross v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 9:41 pm
The trial court relied upon People v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 12:25 pm
In People v. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
The Supreme Court’s latest foray into this area is Merck v. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 6:11 am
Cross-published at Tech Policy Press. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 8:36 am
(see, e.g., Playboy v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 9:33 pm
But, in the case of people using networks, at what point does it cross the line into violations of personal privacy? [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 9:38 pm
(See People v. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 12:52 pm
When in response to the prosecutor's question, the main prosecution witness falsely testified that she had received no benefit for he testimony, the prosecutor did not correct this "misstatement" as required (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496-498; People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451, lv denied 2 NY3d 762; People v Potter, 254 AD2d 831, 832).2. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 2:50 pm
In Edwin Cheek v. [read post]
The Problem with Affirmative Action After Grutter: Some Reflections on Fisher v. University of Texas
6 Mar 2012, 8:30 pm
Nonwhite people and White people acquire cross-racial understanding. [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:06 pm
Coupled with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 8:33 am
Peters v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 8:33 am
Peters v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 11:44 am
State v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 2:10 pm
Zeininger´s defense argued that the Constitution´s Sixth Amendment gives people the right to cross-examine the witnesses against them and also referred to a United States Supreme Court case, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
