Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Johnson" Results 101 - 120 of 2,741
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2015, 1:53 pm by Stephen Bilkis
A defendant need not commit an affirmative act directed at a child (see People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 591 [2002]; People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372 [2002]) nor cause actual harm to a child (see Johnson, 95 NY2d at 371; see also People v Duenas, 190 Misc 2d 801 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]) to be guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 1:25 pm
  And thanks to Justice Johnson, step-by-step instructions are now also available in the California Appellate Reporter.Heck. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 9:47 pm
Veteran Boston Herald courthouse reporter Laurel Sweet reported on the story, noting that the case under review, Commonwealth v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 11:26 am by Jeffrey Carr
Jansen Pharmaceuticals, part of Johnson & Johnson, devloped the drug and manufactures it. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 10:35 am
 No summary judgment.A critical case for a huge number of people in Southern California. [read post]
Johnson granted a temporary restraining order against state laws designed to take effect after Roe v. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 2:14 am
One of them is Drug and Device Law’s post on the California Supreme Court decision adopting the sophisticated user doctrine in product liability cases, Johnson v. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 1:43 pm
 The People of the State of California agree, and support the trial court's view of the statute on appeal.But the Court of Appeal disagrees. [read post]
9 May 2007, 2:38 pm
I'd have given him more if I could.But, notwithstanding that sentiment, I think that Justice Johnson is right in dissent. [read post]