Search for: "People v. Kerr" Results 521 - 540 of 729
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2011, 5:35 pm by Julie Lam
The Michigan Supreme Court denied eight applications for leave to appeal, including: Odom v City of Detroit, No. 142483, where Justices Marilyn Kelly and Hathaway would grant leave; People v Taylor, No. 142390, where Justice Marilyn Kelly would grant leave; People v Kerr, No. 142257, where Justice Marilyn Kelly would grant leave and Justice Zahra did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel; and Spayth… [read post]
26 May 2011, 11:16 am by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) Based on an initial read, I find today’s decision in Camreta v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 12:26 am by Orin Kerr
He became a judge on the New York Court of Appeals, and he wrote at least one opinion that touched on it, People v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am by Edward Craven, Matrix Chambers.
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
20 May 2011, 10:19 am by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) The Eleventh Circuit has handed down a new en banc decision, Gilbert v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 11:23 am by Orin Kerr
To teach the material, law professors have to come up with all sorts of creative hypotheticals that just don’t often come up in real criminal prosecutions: People who commit crimes while sleepwalking, under hypnosis, and the like. [read post]
11 May 2011, 10:17 am by Conor McEvily
In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky argues that the Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 7:59 am by Rebecca Tushnet
People tend to agree to any terms provided—need to know more about this. [read post]
4 May 2011, 2:10 pm by CJLF Staff
  The Alco-Sensor V breathalyzer might have shown incorrect readings because of a manufacturer's error that can cause condensation to build in the tube. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 11:52 am by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) Today’s news that Paul Clement is leaving King & Spaulding over his defense of DOMA reminds me of one of the big stories among Harvard Law students when I was a student there back in the mid-1990s: The boycott of Sidley & Austin for its representation of the state of Colorado in Romer v. [read post]