Search for: "People v. Part"
Results 521 - 540
of 25,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
This is Part I of VII of a brief recap of some the significant environmental law and administrative cases decided in the past few months: I. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 3:46 am
This is appears to be the case, in part, in the recent case of People v. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 10:33 am
The attitude behind this hard Brexit concept was reflected in Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech at the Conservative Party conference in late September: “[t]oo many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 4:43 am
A person who entered the United States illegally is not a part of “the people” entitled to claim Second [or Fourth] Amendment protection. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 2:02 am
Social rent v. [read post]
16 Oct 2007, 10:27 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 12:27 am
Those of us who take the Fourth Amendment seriously, with its "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" from search and seizure, were dismayed by the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Florence v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:10 pm
(People v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 8:43 am
Nobody Agrees * More people are staying offline due to privacy fears, Oxford research warns * WSJ: How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online The post 2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 5 (Privacy) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 6:04 am
Portillo-Munoz that illegal aliens are not part of the "people" protected by the Second Amendment and thus have no constitutional right to bear arms. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 12:14 pm
Recall that we noted in the last post that presumptions may not be invoked where the underlying facts needed to support them are not present (see People v Zekaj, 191 AD2d 663 [2nd Dept 1993]; People v Wilt, 105 AD2d 1089 [4th Dept 1984]). [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 12:14 pm
Recall that we noted in the last post that presumptions may not be invoked where the underlying facts needed to support them are not present (see People v Zekaj, 191 AD2d 663 [2nd Dept 1993]; People v Wilt, 105 AD2d 1089 [4th Dept 1984]). [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 1:19 pm
"The Court of Appeal affirms his conviction.You can definitely quibble with at least parts of Justice Slough's opinion. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 12:46 pm
Which, sure, yeah, he definitely is, but that doesn't really go to the whole "crime" part of what we're trying to get at here.Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal affirms. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 5:02 pm
Not necessarily one that makes everything make sense, but that's a big part of the story as well. [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 1:17 pm
It expressly says that its holding is based in substantial part on the standard of review; that the trial court is in a better position than the Court of Appeal to determine the politics and factual circumstances in San Luis Obispo, so there's a great degree of deference that's required.At the same time, however, the opinion does contain a couple of things that I found a little one-sided. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 8:06 am
Cheatham is entitled to double jeopardy protections -- not as a matter of constitutional law, but rather as a result of the part of the statute that says that in the relevant proceedings, "the person shall be entitled to the rights guaranteed under the federal and State Constitutions for criminal proceedings. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 1:05 pm
Which is bad for everyone.Again, not a part of today's holding. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 2:37 pm
We shouldn't try to indoctrinate a reader with half an opinion's worth of persuasion before introducing the hard part of the case.Let's instead be honest -- from the outset -- what the case is about. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
Here is part two of my insights from last week’s DRI class action seminar: No Injury Classes and Article III Standing: Andrew Pincus, lead counsel in Spokeo, Inc. v. [read post]
