Search for: "People v. Shields"
Results 981 - 1000
of 1,746
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2015, 10:05 am
Alabama applies retroactively on collateral review to people sentenced as juveniles to mandatory life without parole. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 2:00 am
Journalism and the PCC There are no adjudicated PCC rulings to report, but several “resolved” cases including: Miss Catherine Lemon v Western Daily Press (Clause 1, 20/01/2012); A woman v The People (Clauses 3, 6, 9, 19/01/2012); A woman v Daily Mail (Clauses 3, 6, 9, 19/01/2012); Mr Alan Shannon v Ayr Advertiser (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Mr Alan Shannon v Sunday Mail (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Dr Esther Hobson v The Star… [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 5:32 am
Inforrm has an article on the recent decision by Twitter to ban posting images of people without their consent. [read post]
13 Jan 2025, 12:00 pm
The court of appeals relied on the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Ginsberg v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 9:01 pm
In the space below, I provide a brief summary of the United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 8:53 am
The federal SHIELD Act, on the other hand, has no “intent to harm” requirement. [read post]
20 May 2011, 4:17 am
And educated, monied people who get too hinky to think that they seek the approval of guys with shields in the courtroom get burned for not thinking.If otherwise smart people can't figure out how to do the math when it comes to appearing in a criminal court, they have only themselves to blame. [read post]
28 May 2025, 6:04 am
Wisc.) in Hoffman v. [read post]
17 Feb 2022, 7:37 am
In other words, the law was not about fetal health, safety, or termination — and certainly not about protecting women’s health — but ultimately sought “to chip away at the private choice shielded by Roe v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 12:50 pm
As virtual worlds become more important to more people, and as more people spend more money in virtual worlds, more regulators will take notice. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 2:40 pm
As the Supreme Court recognized in the Reno v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 11:29 am
The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 4:54 am
What this mantra fails to take into account is that when they put on a shield, they are no longer Just “people,” subject to whatever foibles people suffer, but agents of the state imbued with enormous authority over others. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:11 pm
Burwell v. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 11:12 am
Fairchild v. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 12:08 pm
In the case of Too Much Media v Hale the New Jersey ruled this week that blogger Shellee Hale was not a journalist entitled to protect confidential sources and newsgathering information under the State’s “shield law”. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 3:25 am
" The convention and the people did not agree. [read post]
5 Jun 2010, 8:27 am
In Carr v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 3:47 am
In State v. [read post]
