Search for: "People v. Marvin" Results 101 - 120 of 178
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2008, 10:49 pm
The headline of this post is a bit misleading in that, the court will determine only one facet of Jessica's law as implemented in California, it is with respect to civil commitment.7-10-2008 California:The California Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a popular law that allows sexually violent predators to be confined indefinitely is constitutional.At their weekly conference in San Francisco, the justices voted 5-2, with Justices Ming Chin and Marvin Baxter in the… [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 7:00 am by GSU Law Student
Sources [1] Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm by Korinne Dunn
These states follow the logic of Marvin v. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 8:26 am
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a 4-3 decision in Goldberg v. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 8:26 am
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a 4-3 decision in Goldberg v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:55 am
(2) During arguments, Justice Carlos Moreno had an interesting exchange that had echoes of Brown v. [read post]
25 Feb 2021, 12:00 pm by Alicia Maule
Johnson and his attorney were the only Black people in the courtroom. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 1:10 pm by Lyle Denniston
  There was much talk of easements, and limited fees, servitudes, and reversionary interests, but in the end it was far from clear what would guide the Court to a ruling in Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 12:00 am by Gordon Firemark
_r=1&hpw Taymor’s Filing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83562006/taymor THResq: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/julie-taymor-spider-man-producers-motions-dismiss-lawsuits-303310 Corbello v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:24 am
Justice Marvin Baxter suggested several times through his questioning that Prop 22 may have decided the matter, and that the court should not overrule the people on this question. [read post]