Search for: "State v. Killings" Results 41 - 60 of 11,566
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2024, 3:00 am by Yosi Yahoudai
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times) Ryan King, a spokesman for the office of the University of California’s president, Michael V. [read post]
22 May 2024, 10:23 am by David Luban
Under the ICC’s founding principle of complementarity, a case is “inadmissible” if it is being “investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution” (Rome Statute art. 17(1)(a)). [read post]
20 May 2024, 7:24 am by Tom Dannenbaum
However, the crimes of mass-killing and the abuse of captives, including torture, rape and other sexual violence are also well supported by publicly available information and their gravity demands attention. . [read post]
20 May 2024, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
  They expressly and specifically declared their joy in killing Jews, not "colonists. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm by John Ross
If you call 911 to report you have taken hostages and already killed two of them, and then confront the police while holding a machete, that is probably not going to end well. [read post]
17 May 2024, 12:29 pm by Josh Blackman
I am doubtful that Justice Barrett would have joined United States v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]