Search for: "The People v. Cross"
Results 321 - 340
of 5,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
20 Nov 2014, 2:50 pm
In Edwin Cheek v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 2:24 pm
People care. [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]
17 May 2018, 1:06 pm
Coupled with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. [read post]
7 Mar 2009, 8:23 am
People v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 5:49 am
One of the most famous and compelling defenses of the unitary executive comes from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:42 pm
However, the parties will have to await the decision in the Actavis v Sanofi reference before they can see what the future of their case looks like. [read post]
25 May 2007, 7:42 am
Static Control Components, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 3:30 am
Duncan Kennedy, The Bitter Ironies of Williams v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 7:20 am
In many cases people do this without really understanding the consequences of what they are doing.The problems of using joint tenancies with children are again illustrated in a recent British Columbia case, Turner v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:41 am
In State v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 12:32 pm
Two cases, People v Torres and People v Roldan, outline when this might happen. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 11:43 am
Vidal v. [read post]
14 Aug 2024, 2:24 pm
This holding conflicts with a recent ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, People v. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 9:55 am
Consumer Depot, Abramson v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 9:01 pm
By contrast, if police took a statement in violation of Miranda, the statement would be inadmissible in the government’s affirmative case but admissible on cross-examination of the defendant, under Harris v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:16 pm
On 12/15/09 in People v Wrotten (a name that works), the Court of Appeals, relying on People v Cintron (75 NY2d 249 [1990]) held that permitting an adult complainant living in another state to testify via real-time, two-way video after finding that because of age and poor health he was unable to travel to New York to attend court was within the trial court's inherent powers under Judiciary Law § 2-b, absent any specific statutory authority for such… [read post]
