Search for: "State v. Killings" Results 321 - 340 of 11,576
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2024, 12:25 pm
This case is unusual if only because you usually don't see someone get sentenced to federal prison for trying to smuggle someone into Mexico.Though if the reason you're trying to smuggle that person into Mexico is because he just shot and killed a police officer in the United States, yeah, that'll get you in trouble for sure. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 10:22 am by INFORRM
United States Supreme Court Gonzalez v Google and Twitter v Taamneh. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 6:20 am by Eugene Volokh
Okay, so we know what happens if Vic kills Alec — felony murder on Rob’s part in the proximate cause states, not any crime on Rob’s part in the agency states. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 9:32 am
This is no more evident than in a recent case out of Maryland called State v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 3:04 am
America’s largest Harley Davidson dealer, Bruce Rossmeyer was killed in a motorcycle accident on July 30. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 5:40 am
After a jury convicted Christopher Castillo “of making a threat to injure or kill the President of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 7:47 am
In its decision Wednesday in Kansas v. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 3:00 am
 The judiciary, right from the famous case of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 has relied literally on the medical reports to adjudicate the actus reus of the accused and this reliance has been time and again criticized. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 9:02 am
 The judiciary, right from the famous case of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 has relied literally on the medical reports to adjudicate the actus reus of the accused and this reliance has been time and again criticized. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 10:00 am by David Kopel
(David Kopel) At issue: a federal statute bans commercials depictions of “animal cruelty,” namely a depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if killing or other action violates the law where the “the creation, sale, or possession takes place. [read post]