Search for: "People v. Phillips" Results 441 - 460 of 914
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
(e) He corruptly sells privileged access to himself to a select group which included business people and business lobbyists in return for donations to the Liberal Party. [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:00 pm
Courts have recognized that under Penal Law § 35.10(1) a parent may use physical force against a child when he reasonably believes it to be necessary to promote discipline or the child's welfare (see Fields, 134 AD2dat 365; see People v Prue, 219 AD2d 873 [4th Dept 1995]; People v Thompson, 9 Misc 3d 1123[A] [City Ct, Westchester County 2005]). [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:00 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Courts have recognized that under Penal Law § 35.10(1) a parent may use physical force against a child when he reasonably believes it to be necessary to promote discipline or the child's welfare (see Fields, 134 AD2dat 365; see People v Prue, 219 AD2d 873 [4th Dept 1995]; People v Thompson, 9 Misc 3d 1123[A] [City Ct, Westchester County 2005]). [read post]
24 May 2015, 3:22 pm
2010 NY Slip Op 51103 The People of the State of New York v. [read post]
24 May 2015, 3:22 pm by Stephen Bilkis
2010 NY Slip Op 51103 The People of the State of New York v. [read post]
22 May 2015, 12:26 pm
They include: (1) Nonnon v City of New York;2 (2) Simpson v City of New York;3 (3) Irizarry v City of New York;4 (4) Carollo v City of New York;5 (5) Walsh v City of New York;6 (6) Arisio v City of New York;7 (7) Parmigiano v City of New York;8 (8) Phillips v City of New York;9 and (9) Nessen v City of New York.10 There were 29 plaintiffs in the original nine actions. [read post]
13 May 2015, 10:46 am by Kali Borkoski
” Justice Garland recalled the Court’s precedent in “NBC v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 1:31 am by INFORRM
The story detailed how the NSF offers attendance at lunches and VIP events with the treasurer to people who pay membership fees of up to $22,000. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
  The organisation thought ”The case would set a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent for ordinary people’s dealings with the police”. [read post]