Search for: "People v. Case" Results 4501 - 4520 of 51,337
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2013, 10:39 am
In such cases, an attorney may call for a "Stuart instruction," so called because it comes from the 1977 case Stuart v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 4:30 am by Darryl Hutcheson, Matrix
Anyone would in a sense be “vulnerable” when homeless but section 189 sought to identify people with a priority need for accommodation ([[51] and [93]). [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 4:29 am
Tenenbaum, by Bruce Gain, of Intellectual Property Watch:"President Obama Backs RIAA In Online File-Sharing Case"Background:"Obama's Justice Department intervenes on side of RIAA in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 5:49 am
But manufacturers don't have to warn about obvious dangers -- because people already know about them. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 7:28 am by INFORRM
  The case gives rise to a number of points of interest. [read post]
11 May 2015, 6:54 am by MBettman
On May 19, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Board of Health of Cuyahoga County v. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 6:08 pm
A senior High Court judge last week criticised the Court of Appeal's thinking on mediation in the key decision of Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust, which he said was ‘clearly wrong and unreasonable'Mr Justice Lightman said that the use of mediation is being stifled by the Court of Appeal's decision in Halsey, in which it laid out that parties could not be forced into mediation and that the burden for… [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 7:39 am by Christopher Tyner
The trial court did not err in jury instructions for armed robbery by failing to designate the victims on the facts of this case State v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 2:20 pm
One of the things I try to do when I read cases is to make sense of them. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 6:05 pm by Donald Thompson
 The People have the initial burden of going forward to show the “lack of any undue suggestiveness” (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990]; People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]). [read post]