Search for: "People v Roy R." Results 41 - 60 of 187
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2017, 12:41 pm by Thomas Surmanski
Roy At paragraph 28 of the decision, Cromwell J., writing for the majority, cites an earlier case, R. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 3:03 am by William Montgomery
[v][vi] This statistic alone highlights the most significant driver of the massive industry growth: people enjoy watching other people play video games, and are willing to pay to have a quality experience. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 12:49 pm by Eugene Volokh
The logic of that case equally applies to punishing people for refusing to stand for a flag salute, see Lipp v. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 5:29 am by Ruth Levush
(Förordning (2007:1181) med instruktion för Institutet för språk och folkminnen). 5. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 6:00 am by Doug Cornelius
[More…] My Retirement – Search for Successor by Roy Snell I am retiring in March of 2020. [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Internet and Social Media Google is to remove private medical records from search results after people request action. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 10:23 am by Jordan Brunner
Then-Director of National Intelligence James R. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 1:25 am by INFORRM
The biggest legal story of this coming week will be the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – the Article 50 “Brexit” judgment. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 4:44 pm by INFORRM
The last of these was R v France (Anthony) [2016] EWCA Crim 1588 (Case summary: [2016] WLR (D) 566.) [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 4:44 pm by INFORRM
The last of these was R v France (Anthony) [2016] EWCA Crim 1588 (Case summary: [2016] WLR (D) 566.) [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 5:47 am by Daniel Schwartz
 Well over 250 people registered for the program and I kind of wanted to whisper to people: “You know this is just a LEGAL seminar, right? [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
  This role was exposed in last week’s judgment in R v Norman ([2016] EWCA Crim 1564) which was discussed on the Panopticon blog Roy Greenslade in the Guardian said that the “wrong people were prosecuted over journalists’ payments to police,” and that the police should have been investigating Rupert Murdoch’s publishing business instead of France. [read post]