Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Laws"
Results 7741 - 7760
of 55,070
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2021, 8:24 pm
Watson v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 2:19 pm
It's a misdemeanor offense, so it goes to the Appellate Division, and then the Court of Appeal, which holds -- in an unpublished opinion -- that it's categorically okay for police to follow people into their homes when they're "fleeing', even for minor misdemeanors. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 8:33 am
On Friday the Supreme Judicial Court handed employees a decisive victory, holding in Meehan v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 8:00 am
Monroe-Lynch v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 6:01 am
" Brinsdon v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
The article is in response to the French data protection regulator CNIL’s recent decision to stop collecting and processing people’s data in France. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:01 am
The executive privilege recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:01 am
From State v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33). [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 2:02 am
Social rent v. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 1:25 am
Recent case law Mr Justice Mostyn made comments in respect of transparency in two recent financial remedy case judgments reported in November 2021, BT v CU and A v M. [read post]
19 Dec 2021, 11:39 am
See, Farmers & Merchants Bank v. [read post]
19 Dec 2021, 9:03 am
Luxy appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 1:49 pm
People v. [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 9:54 am
This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. '[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.' [quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 5:53 am
” People v. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 4:07 pm
At the same time, the justices agreed to decide whether a group of 13 states, led by Arizona, can defend a Trump administration rule that broadened the definition of “public charge,” a term in immigration law for people who are ineligible for a green card if the government believes that they are likely to rely too heavily on government assistance. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 1:50 pm
Sept. 1, 2017). [4] Note that this can't be justified as a religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause or Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Religious exemptions under those regimes are generally available only when a law "substantially burdens" people's religious practices, by forbidding them from engaging in religiously motivated behavior, e.g., Holt v. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 12:13 pm
Case citation: Finch v. [read post]
