Search for: "People v. Render" Results 101 - 120 of 5,228
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2016, 3:42 pm by Arthur F. Coon
On August 17, 2016, the California Supreme Court ordered the Fourth District’s opinion in People for Proper Planning v. [read post]
27 May 2018, 6:18 am by Jeff Schmitt
My article, Courts, Backlash, and Social Change: Learning from the History of Prigg v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 8:12 am by Jon
The Supreme Court rendered a decision June 20, 2011, in Borough of Duryea v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 9:56 am by Derk A. Wadas
  It would appear it may offer relief to people indicted in Federal Court or those convicted but whose have not become final. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 6:55 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Resolving Juror Confusion New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department rendered an opinion in People v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 6:06 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In addition, we conclude that the prejudicial effect of the evidence concerning the prior crimes outweighed its probative value (see generally People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55, abrogated on other grounds by Carmell v Texas, 529 US 513). [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:32 am by John J Downes
He fractured his cervical vertebrae rendering him tetraplegic. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 11:38 am by Saraphin Dhanani
’s arsenal of legal weapons: designating the Russian-backed separatist forces, the Donetsk People’s Militia and the Luhansk People’s Militia (collectively known as the Donbas People’s Militia) and their leaders, as foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended (codified at 8 U.S.C. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:05 pm by Joel R. Brandes
 Almost four years in Mexico was sufficient to render Mexico the children's country of habitual residence. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:26 pm by Charles Bieneman
  This is an important statement because many people, such as the majority of the Federal Circuit panel in MySpace, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 9:50 am
Hansen Chavis, a federal public defender, told the justices that interpreting the law to apply only to federal clemency would render its language meaningless in many cases, as people convicted of state crimes are not eligible for federal clemency. [read post]