Search for: "People v. Morales (1989)"
Results 101 - 120
of 161
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2014, 2:33 pm
Yet the 1989 law, approved by the legislature to eradicate domestic violence, was broad in its intention, referring to relationships in the most diverse ways and making no distinction as to people’s sexual orientation, gender or marital status. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 2:19 pm
Not only was the basic child support cap adopted by the Legislature almost twenty years ago in 1989, but the economic reality of raising a family and living in New York has increased dramatically since then. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
Edwards v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
Once general principles of institutional structures are understood, it is possible to contextualize these insights within the realities of the American Republic--the general government, the administrative branches, inferior political units, and the residuary role of the people as ultimate sovereigns. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am
"[2] Regulatory preferences differ across states because states differ in their citizens' tastes, moral views, wealth, willingness to pay, and the like. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 5:07 pm
The trial judges in Campbell v MGN and Douglas v Hello! [read post]
2 May 2011, 12:00 am
The trial judges in Campbell v MGN and Douglas v Hello! [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 7:10 am
The July 24, 2019 opinion in Stone v. [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 8:35 am
The state is constituted by the union of people and government, and it is the state that claims against all other states the twin rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty. . . . [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
See NetChoice, LLC v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 8:56 am
Monagan (1988, pp. 170), Sheldon Novick (1989, pp. 522), Liva Baker (1991, pp. 783), G. [read post]
5 Jun 2022, 5:48 pm
Failed initiatives can damage employee morale and consume valuable and limited firm resources that could have been better applied elsewhere, so it’s good to find solid footing before going any further down these paths. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 8:44 am
Some people are getting this priceless protection, and others are not, with little justification for the different treatment but just because they drew a judge who is more open to pseudonymity or because the judge found their plight to be specially sympathetic. [1] See Hundtofte v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
From the First Amendment side, we have Reed v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 10:30 am
Due to City of Detroit v. [read post]
2 Oct 2021, 3:36 pm
” Koenig v. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
This court in People's Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
State of Gujarat (1989)1 SCC 678 speaking for himself and other three learned Judges of the Constitution Bench through Oza, J., reiterated the same principle. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 9:01 pm
But below the radar, the Executive Branch is engaging in the same type of infighting—on issues that matter and have the potential to harm LGB people across the country.Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed an unsolicited brief in Zarda v. [read post]
