Search for: "People v. Render" Results 1061 - 1080 of 5,282
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The decisions also retroactively recognize same-sex common-law marriages entered into before the 2015 Obergefell v. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 2:52 pm by Michel-Adrien
This was perhaps best exemplified by the rendering of the verdict in R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 5725 [Theriault], in June, in which over 20,000 people watched the verdict being read to hear whether the Theriault brothers, two off-duty police officers who pursued and injured Dafonte Miller, a Black teen, would be convicted of assault. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 11:01 am by Shalev Roisman
” Prakash uses the term broadly to include any form of interpretation that allows for “informal constitutional change” outside the Article V amendment process (see pp. 112-13, 130). [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:19 am by Jeremy Gordon
Philipp, which also involves the confiscation of Jewish people’s property during the Holocaust, concerns the scope of 28 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 7:27 am by David Super
  In fact, however, what critics are alleging is a form of forgery:  reporting people to have cast votes opposite to those they actually rendered. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 11:30 am by Beth S. Lyons
 I have now been involved in the struggles of peoples for the right of self-determination, for equality and against discrimination for a little more than half a century. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 4:30 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
“These elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence” (Jones v State Farm Fire & Cas. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 10:07 pm by Kluwer Patent blogger
In tenth position is an blogpost discussing a case in India: Monsanto v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm by Joel R. Brandes
Instead, it may be facts or evidence from which reasonable inferences may be drawn, beyond the mere proximity of two people themselves. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]