Search for: "People v. Holmes"
Results 461 - 480
of 773
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2013, 7:38 am
A has been seen by other people who know her ex-partner and has been moved out of Lambeth to another refuge in the adjoining borough of Southwark. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 9:29 am
Supreme Court submissions to be available to the public (10.10.2013) from Holmes O'Malley Sexton: Holmes O'Malley reports on a significant development in Supreme Court procedure in Ireland. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 3:38 am
Holmes is accused of killing and injuring numerous people in a movie theater in Aurora, CO in 2012. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 11:55 pm
The people decide, even if they decide stupidly. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:30 am
Nevada 2013http://t.co/rswYrYAV3V -> NY court dismisses copyright personal jurisdiction in TROMA ENTERT. v CENTENNIAL PICTURES 2nd Circuit 2013http://t.co/lcoVRKaYXz -> Link to Copyright case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 5:36 pm
On the consent of the People and pursuant to People v Dunaway, Mapp v Ohio and People v Huntley, a hearing was held in this matter on 19 October 2012. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 1:30 pm
A year later, according to at least one recent source it was Brandeis who persuaded Holmes to dissent in Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 3:44 pm
Holmes. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 6:34 am
., in US v. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 8:05 am
Considered a "landmark case", Epperson v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
8 May 2013, 8:36 am
So, of course, I had to look up the case, which is Nix v. [read post]
4 May 2013, 1:46 pm
Kennedy v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 5:28 am
They clearly are a source of law, as the plaintiffs found in Singer v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 5:30 pm
,Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 4:06 am
As a follow up to my tongue-in-cheek post last Friday about language from judicial opinions I want to mention something that's bothered me for a while now, and see if people think I'm being over-sensitive: the jocular riffing on Justice Holmes's "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" language from Buck v. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 11:33 am
Flight alone, however, " is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right "to be let alone" and refuse to respond to police inquiry' " (id., quoting People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058). [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 7:40 pm
It is sometimes suggested that the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Missouri v. [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 8:55 am
Holmes, supra (quoting People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
In the absence of proof that real people were exposed to products that were unsafe or ineffective (instead of just improperly promoted), there is simply no injury, and thus no standing, for any sort of claim by a TPP or other beneficiary for purely economic loss. [read post]
