Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Laws"
Results 8961 - 8980
of 55,073
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2010, 6:54 am
Taylor v. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 1:15 pm
That policy may be a sensible means to address the situation of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the US. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 11:32 am
Even before the Supreme Court overturned its long-standing constitutional protection for abortion last year in Dobbs v. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 2:21 am
Oregon Attorney General Reply Memorandum of Law*Oregon Attorney General Reply Affidavit*Exhibit F (Excerpt from Doug Jacobson deposition transcript in UMG v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 4:08 pm
Such laws did exist, but only for people who were considered not to have civil rights: slaves (who were either blacks or Indians) or free people of color (again, blacks or Indians). [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 11:43 am
Rupp v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 11:59 am
They’re not missing an “a” and a “v” here or there? [read post]
25 Feb 2012, 9:29 am
I will be sharing some of the Georgia law research in my next blog posts. [read post]
27 May 2024, 8:58 pm
I put up a short post on the argument in Smith v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 1:14 am
QUEENS COUNTY Labor Law Court Rules 'Noseworthy' Doctrine Inapplicable To Worker's Labor Law Claims; Action Dismissed Gonzalez v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 11:55 am
By Eric Goldman Paul v. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 5:01 am
Gissel Packing Co. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2019, 7:38 am
However, as we saw with the 2014 case of McCall v. [read post]
1 May 2014, 4:00 am
The question arose in the case of Getup Ltd. v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869, whether this signature could be electronic, and if so, what kind of e-signature would be satisfactory. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 2:40 pm
” I used the SAGs’ McDonald v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 6:57 am
In Graham v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 8:08 am
Pratt v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 7:16 am
“Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default (CPLR 5015[a][1]), based on law office failure, as detailed in the affirmation of their former counsel who miscalendared the motion (CPLR 2005; People’s United Bank v Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2d Dept 2012]). [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 4:19 am
“Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]), based on law office failure, as detailed in the affirmation of their former counsel who miscalendared the motion (CPLR 2005; People’s United Bank v Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2d Dept 2012]). [read post]
1 Aug 2009, 10:07 am
Qualified immunity also does not apply because case law had already developed that a strip search for non-contraband was likely unreasonable. [read post]
