Search for: "People v. Grant"
Results 5881 - 5900
of 16,988
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2020, 4:09 pm
See United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 12:42 am
People v. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 6:00 am
In a recent case (Lineberry v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 5:39 pm
I was being sincere when I argued in the AALS brief in CLS v. [read post]
2 Apr 2023, 11:13 am
Zaman v Waltham Forest LBC Waltham had accepted that it owed Ms Zaman the full housing duty in October 2020. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 4:40 am
The Court of Appeals affirmed in Pedraza v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 7:19 am
State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am
Unsurprisingly, criminal defendants argue that the court should just grant review on this issue. [read post]
20 Oct 2012, 11:18 am
According to the state legislature, and the California Supreme Court, the [Medical Marijuana] Program [Act] does convey additional immunities against cultivation and possession for sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so only for specific actions; it does not provide globally that the specified groups of people may never be charged with cultivation or possession for sale.5 This immunity granted under the Medical Marijuana Program Act, as I said,… [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 2:25 pm
Maheera and Urantia Foundation v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:30 am
Connecticut or Roe v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
They are also likely doing it because as the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Pintea v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 12:18 pm
Collection Development, LLC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:07 am
After that hearing, at which scientific literature was introduced and doctors for both the planitiffs and defendants testified, Justice Mayer ruled that plaintiffs would not be allowed to offer expert testimony at trial in support of their MCS claims:In New York, evidence based on novel scientific theories or techniques is considered admissible only upon a showing of general acceptance within the relevant scientific community (People v Carrieri, 49 AD3d 660, 854 NYS2d 427 [2d Dept… [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 11:19 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Fraley v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Ramos v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
Section 63(2) of the CTA enables any person affected by a decision granted under the Act to apply to the High Court to set it aside. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 6:29 am
Titanic, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 12:31 pm
They put few people on the row and killed fewer (NJ killed none, NM one). [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 9:01 pm
A somewhat unusual effect of the rule appears in the April 13, 2016 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Palydowycz v. [read post]
