Search for: "People v. More"
Results 381 - 400
of 48,358
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2020, 11:35 pm
Here, the patent-in-suit is still going to be a valid for a few more months, and Daimler made a counteroffer well ahead of the trial, which used to be deemed more than timely in Germany.What the CJEU meant in Huawei v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:17 am
Unfortunately, though, that is what happened to our client in People v. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 10:25 am
We've received a large volume of emails, including detailed notes from a few people who attended the oral arguments in Murphy v. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 10:00 pm
Colleen V. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 4:11 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 5:15 am
Let's draw some conclusions that will become more relevant, particularly as we get to the last of the three backdating cases, Desimone v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 1:52 pm
So his current appeal says that he shouldn't have gotten anything more than that on remand, rather than the 495 years that he in fact received.With that context in mind, can you think of a more practically meaningless appeal? [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 2:31 pm
So, even though he is legally less culpable without a finding of premeditation, he faces more minimum time in custody. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 12:30 pm
Couldn't agree more.Oh, and more more thing. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 10:04 am
(Especially alongside the dissent's comparison to other -- even more egregious cases -- involving other alleged torture-related deaths of infants.) [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 1:26 pm
In the meantime, time will tell whether we get more dissents like these. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 7:57 am
Filed under: Attorney/Lawyer, Criminal Law, Evidence Tagged: forfeiture of constitutional right, Michigan Court of Appeals, People v Vaughn [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 5:46 am
If free speech is for people, and corporations aren't people, then is there an element of hypocrisy in supporting a lawsuit by a corporation asserting its right to use its wealth and power with respect to a contentious political issue? [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 5:03 am
I achieved another big win for a client in Queens! [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 4:25 pm
Of course, you can also use the Comment feature to let people know what you think about the possible application of this federal preemption legal doctrine to drug injury lawsuits -- the issue that is before our Supreme Court in the Wyeth v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 2:05 pm
In three of the criminal appeals (People v Bean, 2009 NY Slip Op 06947 [4th Dept 10/2/09]; People v Laing, 2009 NY Slip Op 06906 [4th Dept 10/2/09]; People v Parks, 2009 NY Slip Op 06995 [4th Dept 10/2/09] the Court noted that the trial attorney had failed to renew the motion for a trial order of dismissal (TOD motion) as has been required, at least since the 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Hines,97 NY2d 56,… [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 4:27 am
People v. [read post]
31 May 2021, 7:09 am
The post Child Support Bullets Part 13: Family v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 4:55 pm
From Stavig v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 10:33 am
Sometimes, in the middle of an opinion, you read a paragraph that just makes everything else make sense.So when Justice Nicholson says, in the context of whether it was proper to conduct a joint trial of both of defendant's alleged crimes:"Second, neither case was more prejudicial than the other or unusually likely to inflame the jury. [read post]
