Search for: "People v. Parks" Results 661 - 680 of 3,858
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
" Id. at 638 (rejecting argument of arrestee, who was stopped by a city police officer for a traffic violation and arrested after the officer mistakenly identified him as an individual who had nine unpaid parking tickets and a warrant for his arrest, that the city had an unconstitutional policy of arresting people for not paying their parking tickets). [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 12:15 pm by Kevin
Approximately Thirteen Unoccupied Burial Plots Situated at Forest Lawn Memorial Park’s Hollywood Hills Cemetery Located in Los Angeles, California. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 7:40 pm by Linda McClain
Piggie Park Enterprises (1968) are relevant to present-day controversies over claims to religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws and cautioned against arguments—advanced earlier in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 10:30 am
  It could open the door to discrimination against people of minority faiths, against women, against single parents, and more. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 2:05 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In three of the criminal appeals (People v Bean, 2009 NY Slip Op 06947 [4th Dept 10/2/09]; People v Laing, 2009 NY Slip Op 06906 [4th Dept 10/2/09]; People v Parks, 2009 NY Slip Op 06995 [4th Dept 10/2/09] the Court noted that the trial attorney had failed to renew the motion for a trial order of dismissal (TOD motion) as has been required, at least since the 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Hines,97… [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Her books include Manhattan for Rent, 1785-1850 and The Park and the People: A History of Central Park, co-authored with Roy Rosenzweig. [read post]
The court considered the proximity in space and time to the workplace, the pressure for employees to attend, and the following facts: The majority of the people at each party were employees;The employer sponsored the initial party;It provided alcohol and encouraged employees to drink;The after-party was a continuation of the first party; andThe employer may have known about Walsh’s previous inappropriate behavior.Phelps v. [read post]
The court considered the proximity in space and time to the workplace, the pressure for employees to attend, and the following facts: The majority of the people at each party were employees;The employer sponsored the initial party;It provided alcohol and encouraged employees to drink;The after-party was a continuation of the first party; andThe employer may have known about Walsh’s previous inappropriate behavior.Phelps v. [read post]