Search for: "People v Reading"
Results 381 - 400
of 24,048
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2024, 8:26 am
In People v. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 1:41 pm
Heller and McDonald v. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 2:12 am
Renaissance Learning, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:45 pm
" Read the instruction, let the jury use its common sense with respect to what this means, and move on.In this case, the trial court -- Michael Knish, a temporary judge in San Bernardino -- didn't do that, and instead gave a lengthy series of examples to the jury about what wouldn't constitute "reasonable" doubt. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 1:50 pm
Thomas, the court in the case of People v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 11:41 am
I spent my morning reading the California Supreme Court's opinion in the marriage cases. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 10:54 am
Johnson v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 7:01 am
Sheldon Roberts v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 6:05 pm
Remember Marbury v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 3:50 pm
Ever.The actual details of the offenses are amongst the most disturbing I've ever read. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 2:19 pm
One reads -- as one might suspect -- a fair number of DUI cases in the Court of Appeal. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 3:59 pm
Plus, it involves a fascinating issue -- whether it's relevant in a woman-on-girl molestation trial that the alleged perpetrator is a lesbian -- as well as a scintillating dynamic in this particular case of how the prosecutor used this information notwithstanding the trial judge's reluctance to/instructions about not letting it in.In short, read the whole thing. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 11:59 am
Plus, I smiled when I read this: "Sureño gangs associated with sports teams that use a blue motif, such as the Dallas Cowboys. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 2:41 pm
Nothing published in the Ninth Circuit or the California Court of Appeal today, so we're on our own vis-a-vis reading material.So I thought I'd at least mention this opinion from Friday. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 11:43 am
Whereas, today, in state court, you read an opinion in which the defendant is convicted of possession of child pornography -- numerous pictures of a 13-year old daughter of his girlfriend -- and he receives . . . one year in county jail.That's a big difference.P.S. - The opinion also holds that it's too vague for a condition of probation to be that the defendant not possess any "pornography" at all. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 12:33 pm
Only one published opinion thus far from the California Court of Appeal, and that one's not especially worth reading -- that is, unless you're keenly interested in finding out whether someone who tried to help the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians open a casino gets paid. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 3:48 pm
You can read the subsequent 20 pages if you'd like. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 12:59 pm
It's struck me as strange as I was reading it that this opinion referred to the defendant by his last name (Henderson) and the key male witness the same way (Aguilar), yet referred to the key female witness by only her first name (Tiffany).It may perhaps be that the panel doesn't know Tiffany's last name. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 3:16 pm
Read this opinion. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 8:23 am
By contrast, this one's just bizarre.When reading the opinion, you obviously feel bad for the murder victims and their families. [read post]
