Search for: "People v. Manis"
Results 61 - 80
of 30,420
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2023, 11:37 am
"Which is, I guess, theoretically true -- once the California Supreme Court decides something, barring its reconsideration of this issue, the only thing left is to ask the Legislature to change the law.But I'm fairly sure that the class of people who drive drunk and kill people don't exactly have awesome lobbyists in the California Legislature. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 5:23 pm
As with many homeless people. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 9:28 pm
One that appears in the pages of the California Appellate Reporter many, many times. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 10:26 am
Willis, 2016 WL 9115484 (Minn. 2016), many states answer this question in the affirmative: See, e.g., People v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 10:09 am
One especially memorable case was Finkel v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 12:59 pm
For so many different reasons. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 9:48 am
Many people last week opened their Facebooks to find a pink equality sign on a red background populating their Facebook newsfeed. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 2:46 pm
Water that is diverted for purposes of irrigation, however, 'is not deemed severed and thus remains [realty]' (13 Witkin, supra, § 91, p. 113); 'In the case of water for irrigation, delivered in ditches or pipes, the severance does not take place at all'.In a usually overlooked part of People v. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 2:35 pm
Juror John V. himself was convicted of DUI by plea. . . . [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 4:56 am
U.S. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 5:11 am
The result in Snyder v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 12:37 pm
The purpose of Prop. 36 was to provide relief for many people given life sentences for nonviolent offenses.But there were exceptions. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 2:33 pm
Probably not many of the people who passed (or voted for) Prop. 57 in 2016.Yet, there you have it.Now, as a practical reality, I doubt that Mr. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 4:31 pm
I'm certain that there are many people who would categorically agree with Justice Poochigian when he says in this opinion:"The interests of justice are not furthered by excluding truthful, relevant evidence needed to prosecute criminals. [read post]
4 May 2011, 1:41 pm
I've said it so many times that I'm not going to say it again. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 11:51 am
But even I know that many states don't require front license plates. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 8:43 pm
Although the Court in R. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:05 am
Copyright (c) 2010 by John V. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 12:31 pm
No offense to homeless people, many of whom do their jobs more proficiently than Mozilla and Yahoo. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 12:02 pm
In Fulton v. [read post]
