Search for: "People v Strange"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,424
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2015, 11:48 am
There's a fine line between "dangerously mentally ill" versus "dangerously incredibly strange". [read post]
15 Nov 2015, 7:48 pm
How did we get here, to such a strange result that might so profoundly disrupt several decades of work authorization rules and practices? [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 10:45 am
The statute will — and is designed to — constrain people from communicating with other people in certain specified ways. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 4:29 am
It’s a bit of a strange feeling actually. [read post]
7 Nov 2015, 6:35 am
Strangely, the purported “alleles present statistic” used by the KC Lab people, does not appear to be scientifically recognized by anyone except the 2 people testifying for the government. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 6:18 am
Judging from this morning’s oral argument in Lockhart v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 7:00 am
He skipped past Part 1, which related to planning, because he had some strange sense that if the third-person account of his evening ever came to the attention of a housing law blog they would be more interested in Parts 2-5. [read post]
[David Kopel] How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense
2 Nov 2015, 4:52 pm
(D.C. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 1:23 pm
In Spokeo, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 11:37 am
The court of appeals so ruled in State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 11:37 am
The court of appeals so ruled in State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 3:35 am
” It is my sense that NFIB v. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 9:01 pm
We have had 10 years of total control of the air in Laos and V. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 2:40 pm
The high court decided long ago in Michigan v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Today, for reasons both technological and political, there is an increasing divergence and growing conflict between U.S. and foreign laws that compel, and prohibit, production of data in response to governmental surveillance directives.[1][2] Major U.S. telecommunications and Internet providers[3] face escalating pressure from foreign governments, asserting foreign law, to require production of data stored by the providers in the United States, in ways that violate U.S. law.[4] At the… [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 5:42 am
Michael Bandler, MB&Co, Ltd. a/k/a Michael Bandler & Company v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 12:38 pm
The trial court allowed introduction of evidence about her sexual history with other people; that could definitely be a problem. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:29 am
By contrast, in Oracle v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:50 am
It would be strange otherwise, given the extent of judicial exegesis in antitrust. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 6:00 am
In the 1996 decision of R v Hinchey, the Supreme Court went through this offence in detail and provided a breakdown of exactly what the Crown needed to prove in order to get a conviction. [read post]
