Search for: "Moran v. District Court of Appeal"
Results 41 - 55
of 55
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2017, 7:27 am
This post examines a recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal – Fourth District: People v. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am
Short of irrationality it is unlikely to raise any issue of law for the court. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 7:22 pm
On appeal before the court, the defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial upon grounds that the Trial Judge committed reversible error (a) in refusing to charge the jury that, if they found defendant legally insane on July 4th, they would have to find him not guilty on the first count; (b) in neglecting to answer a question propounded by the jury with respect to 'part time' insanity; (c) in permitting the cross-examination of the defense psychiatrist on his… [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:35 pm
Speaking of “navigable waters,” here’s an interesting opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Federal Power Act does not pre-empt regulation of navigable waterways (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 5:00 am
Feb. 26, 2014); Moran v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 1:46 pm
This was the same statute that the district court said in US v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 8:22 am
District Court for the District of Oregon] [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 6:46 pm
The federal district court dismissed his state-law claims with prejudice and his federal claims without prejudice. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
Many years ago, I got into a strange sort of contretemps with Judge Harry Edwards of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 5:00 pm
., at or in the direction of another, whether or not the actor believes it to be loaded; or (5) Commits a simple assault as defined in subsection a. (1), (2) or (3) of this section upon: (a) Any law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority or because of his status as a law enforcement officer; or (b) Any paid or volunteer fireman acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or otherwise clearly identifiable as… [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 7:45 pm
Jerry Moran and the FBI is investigating. [read post]
29 Dec 2019, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision last year in Lucia v. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 4:16 am
Despite the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Gregg v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm
”[21] The Panel explains that this formulation is desirable because it will provide the courts and litigants with notice of appropriate uses of the legislation, and by doing so, it will deter litigation that does not fall within the appropriate uses.[22] As well, a purpose clause will help litigants differentiate between SLAPPs and non-SLAPPs, the latter of which is subject to the limited remedies for traditional civil actions.[23] An effective purpose clause plays the crucial roles… [read post]
