Search for: "People v. Day" Results 6001 - 6020 of 23,466
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2019, 6:44 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Also, "Allowing law enforcement officers to target people based solely on characteristics such as ethnicity or national origin is to ʹcondone ethnic harassment.ʺ Zuniga‐Perez v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 11:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The significance of these oversight responsibilities appears even greater in light of the Delaware Chancery Court’s recent decision in Marchand v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 4:03 am by SHG
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the deciding vote in 2003’s Grutter v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 2:41 am
At the end of the day, a shared economy rider may not care [read: no brand loyalty] whether Uber or some other commercial transportation source provides the service, especially when the service is viewed as a roughly fungible. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:31 am by Mary B. McCord
The Supreme Court made this clear in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am by Deborah Heller
The defense expert felt that he may have suffered from stress induced short-term dissociation, which would explain his inability to recall his actions that day. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:26 am by Carolina Attorneys
His probation officer used her discretionary delegated authority to place an electronic monitor on the Defendant for a period of 30 days as a sanction. . . . . 10. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am by Carolina Attorneys
During those first three days of the trial, Defendant conferred with her trial counsel on multiple occasions, and neither Defendant nor her counsel raised the issue of Defendant’s competency to the trial court. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 3:27 pm by David Post
  On July 24, 1974 a unanimous Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes in (the aptly-named) US v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]