Search for: "MATTER OF PEOPLE v. Parker" Results 101 - 120 of 242
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2021, 5:00 am by Kevin
While it may seem like people can file anything they want in court, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched, there actually are limits. [read post]
4 May 2009, 11:25 am
"Three justices, including Chief Justice Sara Parker, said in a joint dissent that the matter should be decided by the Legislature. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 9:27 am by Kevin
Parker was adamant: no matter how trivial, out you go. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 8:40 am
Parker would still continue unless and until Berman is also overruled. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  [I think this is a matter of leveraging reciprocity norms; Ramsey mentions guilt.] [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 7:36 am by Jeff Welty
And it is limited by my modest knowledge of the medical aspects of abortion and related matters. [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 4:10 pm
At least Churchill knew how to flick a good 'V sign'... as, indeed, did the English archers at Agincourt] And… on that note.. [read post]