Search for: "Rider v. Rider" Results 701 - 720 of 1,088
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2015, 3:11 pm by Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C.
This is because a bicycle is not considered a vehicle, as was established nearly twenty years ago in People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 1:46 am
In Oregon, at least on Trimet, speak softly and carry a big message.The case referred to in the Thursday, April 24, 2008, Oregonian story by John Snell:"TriMet: You shout, you're out: New rules - It's not what you say, but how loudly you say it, that will get you booted off the public transit system," can be found at the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) Opinions webpage.The case is: STATE OF OREGON v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 8:33 am by Peter Thompson & Associates
The Mayfield Clinic reports on average that unhelmeted motorcycle riders spend eight days in the hospital, racking up $61,000 in hospital bills. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 12:35 pm
Of course, if the President does appoint a special prosecutor, that prosecutor would be far more likely to be able to compel testimony before a grand jury under the authority of U.S. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 5:59 pm
Recognizing that "the magnetic strip incorporating the computer data on certain MetroCards, which contained no valid fare, were altered so that the cards would appear, and be read, as authentic for the admission of a rider by the turnstile computers," the First Department in People v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 8:33 am by Peter Thompson & Associates
The Mayfield Clinic reports on average that unhelmeted motorcycle riders spend eight days in the hospital, racking up $61,000 in hospital bills. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 3:11 pm by Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C.
This is because a bicycle is not considered a vehicle, as was established nearly twenty years ago in People v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 3:47 pm by Kevin
(Said rider also turned out to be carrying meth, hence the Fourth Amendment issue.) [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 8:24 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
In this case, the plaintiff loses because the hostility was based on crude managerial practices as opposed to political discrimination.The case is Wrobel v. [read post]