Search for: "People v. Render"
Results 4161 - 4180
of 5,283
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2011, 5:11 pm
In People v Colon (2011 NY Slip Op 00831 [4th Dept 2/11/11])the Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that it is not an escape in violation of the penal law because there had not been an authorized arrest. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:42 pm
"[T]rial counsel's duty of effective assistance includes the responsibility to advise the defendant concerning the exercise of [the] constitutional right" to testify at trial (Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73, 74, cert denied 522 US 1128; see People v Carpenter, 52 AD3d 729, lv denied 11 NY3d 830; People v Perry, 266 AD2d 151, 152, lv denied 95 NY2d 856). [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 12:56 pm
Jones are not the real names but they are real people and their legal problems were all too real. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 12:02 pm
In the Matter of Renee Morrell v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 7:02 pm
Sys. of La. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:56 pm
May God protect Egypt and its noble people. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 6:42 pm
”[via Lexisone] People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 5:07 pm
This is because paper course packs are becoming obsolete, and the CCH v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 10:15 am
In People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 1:09 am
It's the time within you are supposed to render your decision. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 11:13 am
While the Courts imposed some rebukes on President Bush’s detention policy, in Hamdi v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 11:42 am
He acknowledges that there is no authority for this distinction, but quotes United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 4:55 pm
(See, e.g., Hall v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 6:13 am
In Thompson v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 11:08 pm
The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant ..............The purpose of the Section is to act in terrorem to make the people comply with the provisions of law. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 6:36 am
So… hey, banker-people-that-read-me… I know you’re there… Google analytics, remember… are you starting to notice anything changing for you guys of late? [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:40 pm
If a respondent were able to dispatch a case that easily, it would render the 90-day-before-finding language meaningless—a respondent could simply wipe that part of the statute away with a motion to dismiss. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:30 pm
Kwikset Corporation v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 11:19 am
First, Strickland v. [read post]
