Search for: "People v Levelle"
Results 8641 - 8660
of 12,303
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2012, 12:44 am
(Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd. v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:03 pm
Register appealed, and the 11th Circuit, in United States v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 8:37 am
He blasts the landmark school desegregation decision in Brown v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:55 pm
People v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:43 am
Then Rosetta Stone v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:05 am
The reason for this disadvantage was that people in Mr Homer’s age group did not have time to acquire a law degree; and the reason why they did not have time was that they were soon to reach the age of retirement. [read post]
8 May 2012, 7:14 am
The case is AT&T v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 3:10 am
In People v Campos, 2012 NY Slip Op 02267, an interesting scenario evolved. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:07 pm
Borland and Intel v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:00 pm
Supreme Court in Connick v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 11:20 am
S. 350 (1993), and vital judicial review to be blocked, see, e. g., Coleman v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 1:47 am
But the enhanced protection afforded to political expression covers political comment expressed in a rude manner, and even to the most local level of politics. [read post]
6 May 2012, 6:52 pm
At most, the people whose contractual relations are brought within the legal construct known as the corporation may have a common purpose. [read post]
6 May 2012, 2:29 pm
The post concludes by examining the potential role of the “superior” European-level legislature, but concluding that its proposals may involve an even lower level of protection than we currently enjoy in the UK. [read post]
5 May 2012, 2:21 am
Not all of us can be level 20 contributors (some of us have to actually bill hours after all–I’m only a level 10 contributor and no, I don’t have an Avvo rating of 10–who can fix that for me?). [read post]
4 May 2012, 10:00 am
eMove Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 9:00 pm
Borbon v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 5:31 pm
” The panel found, however, that Padilla’s allegations -- which resulted in “chronic, extreme pain” and “severe mental and physical harm as a result of the forty-four months of… interrogation” -- did not rise to this level. [read post]
3 May 2012, 7:06 am
No one can doubt that the “fundamental human dignity” of often elderly people held in such a predicament has been severely compromised. [read post]
3 May 2012, 6:36 am
My own view was that this was an obvious due process violation, as the defendant's status as a sex offender was determined at a proceeding which denied him notice and an opportunity to be heard (much as the original SORA classification process struck down in People v David W, 95 NY2d 130 [2000] [holding that the availability of an Article 78 was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process as to the level of classification]). [read post]
