Search for: "People v. Sole"
Results 3501 - 3520
of 6,179
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2014, 11:39 am
The Federation and the LänderArticle 20 [Constitutional principles – Right of resistance](1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.(2) All state authority is derived from the people. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 9:35 am
See State v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 8:06 am
In Leighton v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 3:00 am
Moreover, the case was tried solely on stipulated facts, meaning that no witnesses were called. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 2:14 pm
Some of this occured around the Pleasants v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 1:33 pm
The ICCTA has a “broadly-worded express preemption provision” (quoting People v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 1:33 pm
"the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places"This is a classic quote from Katz v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 1:16 pm
There was a 1995 case out of the First District Court of Appeals, Bennett v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 1:16 pm
There was a 1995 case out of the First District Court of Appeals, Bennett v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 1:49 pm
The group filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Rodriguez v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 11:18 am
Here is an excerpt: The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 4:30 am
In Holder v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 3:40 am
When Tom questions engrained notions about shareholder oppression in closely held businesses, people take notice. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 4:52 pm
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People oppose the defendant's motion. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 4:51 am
In the drawing at issue, that character was replaced by the Mayor of the City of Ghent and the people picking up the coins were replaced by people wearing veils and people of colour". [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm
The focus isn’t (solely) on the formal felony-vs. [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 6:49 am
Tabitha Wiggins v. [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 3:46 am
This point is driven home in People v. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 4:54 pm
When the matter was adjourned to this court, the People withdrew their prior consent and objected to holding the hearing, arguing that defendant did not have a right to an evidentiary hearing solely at his request. [read post]
