Search for: "People v. Grant"
Results 8501 - 8520
of 16,996
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2015, 5:41 pm
Today, though, in Horne v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 1:59 pm
Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 1:04 pm
The Supreme Court usually grants cert and hears argument in cases only when there was a division in the lower courts about how the law applies. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 8:42 am
(AP Photo/Martin Meissner) A Monday order in New York trial court (Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 8:35 am
SanMedica Int’l, LLC v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 6:27 am
In EEOC v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 4:51 am
The Court of Appeals then explained that the trial judge “granted the injunction based on the blog posting. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
” That opinion, Bowers v. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 4:34 am
But, as B&B v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 1:29 pm
But if you want to multitask by getting some background on the substantive arguments before the Court while you listen, you could try the 2013 oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 9:06 am
Co. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 7:21 am
Mikel v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 6:35 am
Data Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
Since the court did not enter any factual findings, as it does when a parent consents to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1051(a) of the Family Court Act in Article X proceedings, no adjudication on the merits took place (Mirelle F. v Renol F., 4 Misc 3d 1011(a) [Sup Ct Queens County 2004]) and there is nothing which could affect or bind the Petitioner in the future (Metz v People, 73 Misc 2d 219 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1973]; Lockwood v Lockwood, 23 Misc… [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 8:15 am
These are, by and large, good people who care. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 7:33 am
Until recently, this new subsection had not been interpreted by Tennessee courts, but the Court of Appeals took up the task of analyzing the statute in Baugh v. [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 3:44 pm
In addition to the confidentiality of the information sought, a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for purposes of procuring discovery, or to ascertain the existence of evidence (see Matter of Amex v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055 [2d Dept. 2009]; Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044 [1993], citing People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 551 [1979]). [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am
In Velasquez v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
There’s mere wordplay to say that photos are transformed from documentation of wedding to confirmation of text saying people are married.Then there’s White v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Lenz v. [read post]
