Search for: "People v I. S."
Results 321 - 340
of 39,171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2011, 11:11 am
I'd have liked the California Supreme Court to at least address the policy consequences of its decision here.Seems to me that one consequence of this holding is to deter people in an emergency from calling 911. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 3:37 pm
Not by the defendant's name. [read post]
11 May 2010, 1:07 pm
I don't dispute that's what the case says. 'Cause it does.But just because something's true doesn't mean you tell it to the jury. [read post]
18 May 2010, 9:55 am
That's a side benefit of reading published appellate decisions.But until I read this case, I had never before heard mention -- much less seen anyone busted -- for possession of thebaine.Which apparently is sort of like morphine and codeine, but a stimulant rather than a depressant.Learn something new every day. [read post]
18 May 2022, 9:16 am
Yearbook/people database opinions are being issued faster than I can blog them. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 12:32 pm
Mendoza is right that it's incredibly unusual to be found guilty of child pornography when there are no actual pictures put into evidence, especially when the computer people say there's no physical evidence they were actually ever there either.But, unfortunately for Mr. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 12:26 pm
There are lots of people who would be guilty of murder if it's enough that they don't care that someone's "hurt" who definitely wouldn't be guilty of murder if the required showing is that they have to not care that someone may be killed by their actions sufficient to demonstrate a "conscious disregard for human life. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 1:05 pm
I do too. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 3:38 pm
Here's proof that times do change. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 8:31 am
Here's what he says:"Doe entered the women’s restroom, which has two stalls, a small one and a larger one for people with disabilities. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 1:37 pm
At least when the Borg's name is James, and at least when the Borg in question repeatedly stalks you to say: "I want to cunnilingus your pussy. [read post]
5 May 2016, 11:16 am
A sense that's only highlighted by the fact that this case is entitled People v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 12:35 pm
'Cause that's the way I roll.As should we all. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm
So while I think the focus on this systemic issue is great, I'm not sure the arguments herein advance the ball much.Or, at a minimum, to me, today's opinion raises just as many questions as it answers. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 3:01 pm
I'm just waiting for "Kindhearted Helping Souls v. [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 12:59 pm
I'm confident we get cases like today's right. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 6:24 am
This new article of mine will be coming out next year in the Journal of Law and Religion, and I thought I'd serialize it here; there's still plenty of time for editing, so I'd love to hear people's feedback. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 12:07 pm
The court will not afford any special deference to the USPTO's interpretation under either Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) or Skidmore v Swift (1944) when the statutory language is so "clear, unambiguous and intolerant" of such interpretation (see page 13 of the judgment). [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 11:22 am
I imagine that if I ever start using any of these terms, my students (or children) will think that something's definitely not right. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 2:43 pm
And, as I said, it's a lot closer. [read post]
