Search for: "People v. Drew" Results 521 - 540 of 1,450
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2015, 6:06 am
The officers drove past Washington Park, where a crowd of people were drinking and shooting off fireworks. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 5:01 am by Joy Waltemath
The Jewish officer alleged that: someone drew a Jewish star next to his name on the list of officers selected for evaluation for promotion; after some coins dropped on the floor, a coworker stated, “money always finds its way to Jews”; a coworker referred to Jewish people as “Christ killers”; his ID badge was defaced with a hat and facial hair typically associated with members of the Middle Eastern or Orthodox Jewish community. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 5:09 am by OBABL Staff
We’ll have to read Professor Maillard’s book “Loving v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 2:14 pm
  But his meaning was clear enough: he meant he would not appoint the kind of judges who voted in the majority in Roe v. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 5:00 am by Doug Cornelius
Cuban drew on his own experience during the SEC’s unsuccessful insider trading action against him to argue that the use of administrative law judges in complex litigation such as insider trading cases is unfair and against the public interest (Hill v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 8:46 am by David Lat
We offer a defense of O’Donnell, who partially redeemed her initial flub, plus video — after the jump.Here’s the video clip:In defense of O’Donnell, note how after she drew a blank on the “name an opinion” question, she proceeded to offer intelligent commentary on Roe v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 10:06 pm
Just what processes do J.P.s use - what questions are asked and what records are kept or are warrants just granted (as many people appear to think) on the nod. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 4:47 am by Jacob Dougherty
The question of whether the stop was reasonable came to the court through a Kansas case, Kansas v. [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 5:28 am by Lee Davis
The data, apparently obtained with a phone company’s help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant’s rights because he “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone.”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United… [read post]