Search for: "People v. Part" Results 101 - 120 of 28,518
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2024, 3:51 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
They also requested that the number of people with access be limited to 3 staff members. [read post]
11 May 2024, 6:56 am
 It is possible to identify three areas of current interest in relation to the control of cognition to advance the interests and aspiration of ideologically driven human collectives. [read post]
9 May 2024, 11:42 am by Richard Hunt
” The “worse experience” part of this sentence doesn’t make sense. [read post]
Intrusion upon seclusion claim: The court referred to Jones v Tsige and stated that the tort required intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of another of his private affairs. [read post]
9 May 2024, 6:05 am by Adam Klasfeld
” At its core, Weinstein’s case simply applied the long-established rules of the more than century-old case of People v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 5:55 am by Mutasim Ali
Second, based on the first conclusion, and as established by the ICJ in Bosnia v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  To add to these difficulties, people are living longer, which means they need their retirement income to last longer. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
7 May 2024, 3:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In People v Reeves (152 AD3d 1173, 1176 [4th Dept 2017]), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, suppressed identification testimony based on the alleged unreliability of the witness's identification, despite the fact that the identification was not the product of unduly suggestive police procedures. [read post]