Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Heard" Results 7241 - 7260 of 7,749
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2008, 1:00 pm
") The RIAA had moved for reconsideration; Judge Atherton denied that motion as well, despite having heard one-sided oral argument by the RIAA's lawyers. [read post]
14 Sep 2008, 10:08 am
[Created through initiative petition filed July 6, 1983, and adopted by the people Nov. 6, 1984]Section 41. [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 11:21 am
Williams heard the bedroom door being unlocked, and then observed the defendant emerge from the bedroom, holding a cup of beer. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 2:12 pm
The most recent of those "adverse decisions" was McCrea v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 6:43 pm by stu@crimapp.com
In People v Perkins, Court of Appeals No. 281957, the Court of Appeals voted to uphold this law. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 6:00 am
  I try to keep up on the happenings of my favorite appellate court, and Justice Lippman in particular, ever since he grabbed me by the throat with his opinion in People v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 12:07 am
"Sometimes people marry for money, and sometimes people kill for money. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 4:49 pm
This is a click fraud case I hadn't heard about previously. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 5:00 am
Ten Reasons Why You Should Teach Here — And Three Why You Shouldn't (v. 2.0) 1. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 11:01 pm
& Ors v Deisel Spa and Case C-302/08 Zino Davidoff SA v Bendesfinanzdirektion Sudost: (Class 46), EPO Boards of Appeal finds that when a fax is transmitted and an ‘OK’ is noted by the sender, this is evidence that the transmission was successful: (IPKat), Professor Hugenholtz slams European Commission for ignoring evidence on copyright extension: (Techdirt)   Germany Federal Patent Court publishes guidelines on colour trade mark Signal Yellow:… [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 1:33 am
As stated stated in this post, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in People v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 12:01 am
He thought the freedom of whites not to associate with blacks was more important than the freedom of blacks to be able to use public accommodations.Second, let us suppose that some substantial portion of the people who heard or read Kennedy's speech were not sophisticated about constitutional law. [read post]