Search for: "People v Word"
Results 761 - 780
of 17,903
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 5:30 pm
,Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. [read post]
18 Jun 2008, 2:04 am
t mean people vote, but instead means that everyone within a society has access to the means to write. [read post]
11 Nov 2017, 2:31 am
The duty is about protecting people from the poisonous and pernicious influence of extremist ideas that are used to legitimise terrorism. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 9:57 am
He posted a lengthy and well-thought out piece about using the word to describe copyright infringement, pointing out that the fact it is not legally correct does not prevent people from using the term colloquially.He takes a pretty good stab at those who cite Dowling v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 4:23 pm
Marbury v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 1:28 pm
" Perhaps a reminder that we're talking about the hills about Santa Clara County; i.e., the expensive (and beautiful) hillsides above Silicon Valley.Nor does the Court of Appeal say even a word about the identity of the homeowner at issue: Candice Clark Wozniak. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 9:52 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:39 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 10:45 pm
" To support this proposition, Justice Blackmun cited two cases, with one-word parentheticals: "Jacobson v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 3:29 pm
Coolidge v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 9:41 am
Heller explained that the words "the people" in the Second Amendment have been interpreted throughout the Constitution to "unambiguously refer[] to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 1:49 pm
Cheddersingh v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 2:57 am
People v. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 3:20 am
Just got word that Jammie Thomas is filing an appeal from the verdict in Virgin v. [read post]
16 Jan 2016, 9:28 am
Additional Resources: Grammer v. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 6:38 am
But that doesn't mean that people - particularly insiders - can't make fun of them for doing it. [read post]
24 May 2015, 3:22 pm
Thus, "[t]he law does not require that the information contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charge, only that the sex crime and the factual basis therefor be sufficiently alleged" (People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8, 10 [2d Dept 2005]). [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
In People v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 9:32 pm
The trial court said no, and the Fourth Department held that the record supports the court's determination (the Court wrote that on this issue one should see generally People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838; People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845; People v Hicks, 69 NY2d 969, rearg denied 70 NY2d 796; People v Dehmler, 188 AD2d 1056, lv denied 81 NY2d 1013). [read post]
