Search for: "People v. Givens" Results 4921 - 4940 of 17,550
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Aug 2008, 11:32 am
In my view, a not insubstantial number of people is likely to have done so. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 10:50 am
In today’s order list, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Jerry Gurkoff, D.O. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 12:55 pm by Ron
Peck issued an important ruling in Monique Da Silva Moore v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 10:07 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Whether people know that this info is held by other party or not; how much detail they have; all is subsidiary to the main problem of extra leverage given to people who already have too much power. [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 9:54 am
We are not aware of any appeal, and it may not have been, given that the plaintiff's expert was excluded in a prior ruling.Mattingly v. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 10:39 am
People on a bus who were misbehaving as the bus passed through a council estate would, for example, not be caught by s.153A; bricks put through a window of an owner-occupied property would not be caught unless the perpetrator was a tenant; (c) this narrow definition made sense because, in any other factual situation, the council could (and should) seek an ASBO instead – see Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Ellis [2008] EWCA 1186 (our note here). [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 7:47 am by Eric Goldman
Given that the admonishment may be reasonably innocently interpreted, it is not actionable per se. [read post]
24 Mar 2025, 12:33 am by Frank Cranmer
In R (Leger) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin), Ms Gladwys Leger was a teacher at Bishop Justus Church of England School [5]. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 8:17 am by John Hopkins
Would you want them to be given the bare minimum of care or would you want them to get good care and be able to pay for it themselves? [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 2:45 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The court concludes that the signed and sworn supporting affidavit of the burglary victim constituted reliable hearsay and/or a relevant statement of any victim under Correction Law § 168-n [3], and that the court was entitled to consider and rely on such evidence as clear and convincing proof that defendant is a level three risk as ruled in People v Saleemi, People v Victor, People v Jimenez and People v Salaam. [read post]