Search for: "People v. Tooks"
Results 8221 - 8240
of 12,220
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2019, 3:36 am
People do bad things. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 2:03 pm
Reasoning by analogy to the court’s decision in People v LeGrand, which dealt with expert testimony on eyewitness identification, defense counsel argued that the judge should at a minimum hold a Frye hearing on the admissibility of Dr. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 4:16 pm
On Tuesday the justices heard oral argument in the case of Nutraceutical Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 3:00 am
, Phantom Touring v. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 7:29 am
And in 1896, the Court in Plessy v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 4:26 pm
All of this is true, but in JN v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 1:56 pm
This term, the court took up a challenge to a similar admitting-privileges law in Louisiana in June Medical Services v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 1:34 pm
New Jersey claiming a jury, not a judge should have decided if she should be sentenced to death, and the other a Strickland v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 10:13 am
Case Citation: People v. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
Moving to the 1980s: it took empowering the courts with the Charter before bar entrance requirements banning non-citizens and bans on inter-provincial law firms were removed (Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143 and Black v Law Society of Alberta [1989] 1 SCR 591, respectively). [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
” After Tinker v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 2:05 pm
The California Supreme Court opinion in People v. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 4:04 am
Putting aside the fact that it took the Supremes two cases to make one ruling, since there could be no doubt whatsoever that the question of retroactivity loomed huge when they decided Miller v. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 2:19 am
Nakazawa v. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 3:35 am
That's the backdrop to the Court of Appeals decision in People v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 12:20 pm
Both history and common sense make amply clear that people can identify with a certain religion, notwithstanding their lack of detailed knowledge about that religion’s doctrinal tenets, and that those same people can be persecuted for their religious affiliation. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 3:26 am
In People v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 4:56 pm
They point out that in Bonnick v Morris ([2003] 1 AC 300) the Privy Council took the view that the single meaning rule could not be applied without modification when a court was considering the Reynolds defence and the question of whether a journalist had acted responsibly. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 11:20 pm
Samuels v. [read post]
