Search for: "Peoples v. United States"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 20,790
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Sep 2007, 10:39 am
United States In United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:42 pm
Both the United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals have held that once a defendant chooses to be represented by counsel, counsel and not the defendant has control over most strategic decisions are made by the attorney and not the defendant (Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 751 [1983]; People v White, 73 NY2d 468, 478 [1989]). [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 2:47 pm
Second, the United States Supreme Court has "insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed as held in Delaware v Prouse. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 8:29 pm
In the appropriately named Liberty v. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 2:39 pm
And the Court of Appeal will -- and does -- affirm:"Zapisek [] testified that he believed, although it might be a delusion, that he had 'inherited a great fortune of money.' He read a prepared statement, in which he asserted that he had appealed his case to the California Supreme Court, which had referred it to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
25 May 2015, 3:23 pm
Page 567 658 N.Y.S.2d 567 172 Misc.2d 186 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 2:09 pm
Brackeen: The Indian Child Welfare Act, states' rights, and the survival of America's first peoples and nations. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 7:11 am
On an operational level, and for most students of law in the United States, the study of the practices and approaches of judges is important for another reason. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 5:31 am
Amid intensifying conversations about the post-Dobbs v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 2:25 pm
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a case further exploring the contours of the Miranda warning, J.D.B. v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 10:10 am
Many people believe that when a non-citizen is in the United States without lawful status, they are automatically deported. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 7:44 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 1:30 pm
Rather, it's more like an otherwise intelligent person who currently believes -- for whatever reason -- that the law is X even though anyone (even a moron) with any sort of legal training would realize that the law is clearly not X and is instead Y.For example, what if I -- an otherwise bright person -- were to suddenly become convinced that the 17th Amendment granted me ownership of every red Lexus in the United States. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2008, 5:35 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 1:15 pm
§ 1983 for infringing on their right to familial integrity under the United States Constitution. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 4:58 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 9:55 am
United States, a case issued a couple of months ago, the D.C. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 3:02 pm
United States Department of the Interior, et al. [read post]
