Search for: "People v Means"
Results 21 - 40
of 28,300
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2023, 1:37 pm
(People v. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 2:15 pm
This makes total sense.Just because your marijuana collective is huge -- here, 1600 people -- doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate collective. [read post]
7 May 2012, 1:19 pm
Words can sometimes mean the exact opposite of what normal people think they might mean. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 5:12 am
Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria: (Case C-154/11); [2012] WLR (D) 218 “An embassy situated in a member state of the European Union was an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in the context of a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending state, where the functions carried out by the employee did not… [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 4:42 pm
While words can mean different things to different people, in libel the parties are concerned with finding the single meaning the words complained of bear. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 8:07 am
Both of these were at issue in the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Bostock v. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 8:07 am
Both of these were at issue in the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Bostock v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 10:51 am
(By 'partial coverage' I mean that I will be selective, picking out some of the most important events, rather than attempt to be exhaustive.)Viacom v. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 4:22 am
But we have expressly recognized that the plain meaning of “each” refers to “two or more” people or things. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:10 am
In the Banks v Cadwalladr judgment, Steyn J commented: “In Bonnick the Privy Council made clear that, given language is inherently imprecise, a journalist should not be penalised for making a wrong decision on a question of meaning on which different people might reasonably take different views. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 3:30 am
Zarda, and Bostock v. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 1:24 pm
Section 290 of the Penal Code requires that when certain people (e.g., sex offenders) are released from jail after serving a sentence of 30 days or more, these people must register their new (post-release) address with the local police department within five working days of their release.Section 290.017a) of the Penal Code similarly provides that when these people are released from jail, these people "shall, prior to . . . release, be informed of his or her… [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Baltimore and Dred Scott v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 10:58 am
Holding that because we know that the Legislature didn't want people shooting at cars, this legislative history "breaks the tie" and means -- as in virtually every case -- that the rule of lenity is meaningless.Of course, the Legislature probably didn't want people shooting at an occupied vehicle from inside a vehicle as well -- since that may well have the same consequences (death, broken glass, car crashes, etc.) as shooting from… [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:25 am
King v. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 11:01 am
Supreme Court case, Pierce v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 12:30 pm
That's a lot of m*****f***ing.First there was People v. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 3:04 am
Regina (Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd) v Gambling Commission (People’s Health Trust intervening): [2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 253 “Societies were not precluded from being ‘non-commercial’ and eligible for the grant of lottery operating licences under section 98 of the Gambling Act 2005, as being established or conducted for the purpose of ‘private gain’ within the meaning of section 19 of the 2005 Act, on… [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 5:11 am
The result in Snyder v. [read post]
