Search for: "People v. Peters" Results 681 - 700 of 1,929
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Apr 2015, 3:52 pm by Stephen Bilkis
In People v Trabazo [193 Misc.2d 436] (180 Misc 2d 961 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1999]), it was held that these limitations on superior courts were sound procedural mechanisms. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Peter DiCola: White-Smithisn’t as clean as that either. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 2:21 am by INFORRM
In a judgement of 26 July 2022, Nicklin J held that the defamatory meaning was that the Claimant was a hypocrite who had screwed the country and set a poor moral example to young people ([2022] EWHC 2469 (QB)). [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
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]
31 May 2022, 11:14 am by Katherine Pompilio
  In an attempt to identify the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn the 1973 ruling in Roe v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 9:21 am by Christine Hurt
Banda then organized her own party, the People's Party, and was going to run for President in 2014. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: USPTO releases ‘FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report’; claims success despite backlog (Managing Intellectual Property) (Law360) (Patent Librarian’s Notebook) (Patent Docs) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patent Prospector) USPTO transition team appointed (Managing Intellectual Property) (Intellectual… [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am by Eugene Volokh
There cannot be a rule under which "poor people ... have their speech enjoined, while the rich are allowed to speak so long as they pay damages. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 4:23 am by centerforartlaw
Matter of Peters, Matter of Peters, 34 A.D.3d 29 (Supreme Court New York, 2006). [read post]