Search for: "People v. Good (1990)" Results 1281 - 1300 of 1,303
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Apr 2007, 10:32 am
More cross-cultural relationships are developing than ever before, as are more international marriages among people of all socioeconomic levels. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 10:35 pm
Good law and good policy - God bless conservative Constitutional law. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 9:05 pm
It wasn't easy but God gave me a good ear. [read post]
10 Feb 2007, 6:02 pm
He has an additional option, one that may be (as it was here) worth a good deal of money. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 12:23 am
Criminal Sanction Impact.01/08/07 REFERRED TO CODES01/30/07 1ST REPORT CAL.5901/31/07 2ND REPORT CAL.LAW / CORRECTNSS1905 SAMPSON -- Authorizes certain inmates serving an indeterminate sentence to receive good time allowances of up to 1/3 of their minimum sentencesSUMM : Amd SS803 & 805, Cor L Authorizes inmates serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for offenses involving controlled substances and marihuana to receive good time allowances against the minimum… [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 8:00 am
Lord Denning, writing in the Spectator, August 1990 6. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 7:53 pm
In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 850 (3d Cir. 1990), involved alleged PCB exposure. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 8:31 pm
  In fact, what is "good lawyering" or "good judging" rests on nothing more than the agreement of people working from various orientations--formalist, realist, legal process, etc. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 8:20 pm
The case shows up in a database used by lawyers, but as Confidential v. [read post]
23 Oct 2006, 3:43 am by Tobias Thienel
Environmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400, 406 (1990)) – from ‘declar[ing] invalid the official act of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory’ (Kirkpatrick, supra, at 405). [read post]
19 Aug 2006, 11:19 am
After all, the background of Marbury v. [read post]
18 Aug 2006, 3:29 pm
., those cases where "reasonable people" can legitimate disagree on the legal analysis)? [read post]