Search for: "People v. Fair"
Results 661 - 680
of 10,526
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2019, 7:48 am
Fair warning, this post recounts some of the sexually graphic discussions at issue in the case. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 7:58 am
Bonus Coverage: We Are the People, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2008, 9:53 pm
The Court explained "we are mindful of our overriding responsibility' to ensure that the cardinal right of a defendant to a fair trial' is respected in every instance" (People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 675, lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871, quoting People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 238). [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 5:03 am
People v. [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 7:23 pm
People v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 7:32 am
Supreme Court victory in Rothgery v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 10:18 am
Additional Resources: Baugh v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 2:45 pm
” For the brief:https://www.eff.org/document/petition-writ-lenz-v-universal For more on Lenz v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 8:33 am
Peters v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 8:33 am
Peters v. [read post]
11 Dec 2016, 4:00 am
See Ferrell v. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 4:58 am
Cavin v. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 9:06 pm
Yesterday the Texas Fair Defense Project, the UT Civil Rights Clinic, and the law firm Susman Godfrey filed a federal lawsuit to stop the City of Austin from unconstitutionally jailing people for municipal court debt. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm
The concept is useful for understanding the arguments before the Supreme Court in Kansas v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 9:01 am
There's been a lot of analysis of the disastrous impact of the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 Concepcion v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 9:01 am
There's been a lot of analysis of the disastrous impact of the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 Concepcion v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:17 am
If this Court were to endorse and condone this abrogation of Hopi law, then all of the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi people, would suffer a terrible precedent in the Hopi way of life. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 6:01 am
In reply, she identified Shelby County v. [read post]
24 Sep 2008, 9:56 pm
In People v Buchanan [4th Dept 6/6/08] (here) the Fourth Department unanimously held that the use of a stun belt that is not visible to the jury is subject to the same judicial scrutiny as other forms of physical restraint that are visible. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:14 am
In reading the opinion, I wondered if this was the same Eastern District of Virginia judge that botched the fair use test in Philpot v. [read post]
