Search for: "People v. Levins" Results 61 - 80 of 568
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2022, 7:02 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Malmo-Levine the Court stated, 28 While the courts apply the requirements of judicial notice less stringently to the admission of legislative fact than to adjudicative fact (Danson v. [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 2:44 pm by Ram Eachambadi | JURIST Staff
Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
If a tax were a wealth tax merely because it reduced people’s net worth, then every tax would be a wealth tax. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
If a tax were a wealth tax merely because it reduced people’s net worth, then every tax would be a wealth tax. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 5:00 am by Neil H. Buchanan
” On the other side of that coin, people feel quite comfortable saying terrible things if they are not worried about being judged harshly.One particularly awful example of this phenomenon is the Supreme Court’s infamous 1986 Bowers v. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 5:21 am by Vercammen Law
He alleged that decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will and that Olga exercised undue influence over decedent to 1 Because several people involved in this matter share last names, we refer to them by their first names. [read post]
29 Aug 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
I believe that it is, but I should be clear that this is no reason for people to give up trying to prove me wrong. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 6:00 am by Joshua R. Goodbaum
Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 1:00 am by Emma Kent
Data is not available for 2020 and 2021. [11] Section 218 of the Act. [12] Wilkinson v Kitzinger (No 2) [2007] 1 FLR 295, per Sir Mark Potter P at [50]. [13] See paragraph 21(2)(d) of Schedule 5; paragraph 5(2)(d) of Schedule 6; and paragraph 10(3)(a) of Schedule 7. [14] GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108; IX v IY [2018] EWHC 3053 per Williams J at [68]; MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649. [15] Levin, I. (2004). [read post]