Search for: "People v. Grant"
Results 481 - 500
of 16,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2011, 9:02 pm
Kennedy v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 2:47 pm
Thus, primarily because of the "legal stigma" attached to warrantless and suspicionless stops, the People bear the burden of proving at a suppression hearing that the particular checkpoint in question was conducted in a non-discretionary manner, that is, the officers did not exercise individual discretion as to which cars to stop or what questions to ask akin to People v Cabrera. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 7:12 pm
Barr v. [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 11:24 am
Ancestry Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Advertising “Background Reports” on People–Lukis v. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 6:25 am
In People v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 11:59 am
Texas v. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 5:23 pm
(See also its decision last year in People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1 [2008], discussed here). [read post]
10 Apr 2008, 5:43 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 5:45 am
In UMG v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 9:28 am
In Arista Records v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 12:59 pm
It's got a population of roughly 47,000 people. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 11:26 am
In Lorenzo v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 1:24 pm
Flood Control Dist. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 1:23 pm
And the California Court of Appeal has been light.But today nonetheless grants us an opportunity to look at how condo development sometimes works. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 2:14 pm
Abarca (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 475, 481–482, review granted October 19, 2016, S237106 [same]; People v. [read post]
2 Feb 2008, 6:02 am
Garcia v. [read post]
1 Mar 2020, 8:23 am
I first blogged the case in 2013 when the lower court granted Yelp’s anti-SLAPP motion; I also blogged it in 2014 when the appellate court reversed the anti-SLAPP motion. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:10 pm
(People v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 10:44 am
People v. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 7:44 am
For most people, that means going to the Appellate Division, and then asking the State Court of Appeals to take up the case, which it can reject without comment because the State's highest court can pick and chose what cases it wants to hear. [read post]
