Search for: "People v. Henderson" Results 101 - 120 of 271
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jul 2020, 12:29 am by Rose Hughes
The case of Emson v Hozelock ([2020] EWCA Civ 871) considered whether a relatively technically simple invention was non-obvious in view of an obscure prior art document. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 10:45 pm
| Servier successful before Henderson J in introducing defence based on the Department of Health's prescribing/reimbursement practices | Can the Curve combat piracy? [read post]
5 May 2016, 1:00 am by Jani Ihalainen
As many people can imagine, the soul of an artist can be a fragile one, and uses of their works (in what ever particular way they are used in a derivative sense) can be a sensitive topic. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 8:12 pm by Brian Shiffrin
Previously, the New York Court of Appeals had affirmed a rejection of that claim (People v Ramchair, 8 NY3d 313, 316 [2007]) reasoning that appellate counsel's brief to the Appellate Division had been “comprehensive,” and the arguments raised therein “strong” (Id.). [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:05 am by Walter Olson
” [Matt Welch] “Threats of violence discourage people from participating in civic life. [read post]
15 Oct 2016, 12:38 pm
Henderson, 748 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir. 2014).Under the Fourth Amendment, a `search’ occurs when “`he government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. [read post]
25 May 2007, 1:03 am
NEW YORK COUNTYCriminal Practice Court Finds Defendant's Love Letters Not Intended To Harass; Harassment Charges Is Dismissed People v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 9:09 pm
Few if any of these questions/issues are new, of course, but I'm curious to hear what people think. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 7:56 pm by Ilya Somin
Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided to hear NCAA v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:51 am by Kiran Bhat
Bonnie Goldstein of the Washington Post’s She The People blog looks at Tuesday’s arguments in Miller v. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 7:42 am by James Eckert
The officers' repeated misrepresentation that defendant's truthfulness might enable doctors to effectively treat Matthew did not render his statements involuntary, because appealing to his parental concerns did not create a substantial risk that he might falsely incriminate himself (see id.; People v Dishaw, 30 AD3d at 690-691; People v Henderson, 4 AD3d 616, 617 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 800 [2004]). [read post]