Search for: "State v. Mannering"
Results 121 - 140
of 18,995
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
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
” The Court held that this claim was preserved because the suppression motion “as based on CPL 710.20(6)—which is not in any manner limited to ‘suggestiveness’—and on the broad grounds that the pretrial identification procedure was “unnecessarily suggestive and was based on CPL 710.20(6)—which is not in any manner limited to “suggestiveness”—and on the broad grounds that the pretrial identification procedure was… [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This is the standard applied to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This is the standard applied to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. [read post]
7 May 2024, 12:30 pm
Bissonnette v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) contemplate the combination of two degrees in such a manner. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:12 am
Per another Supreme Court precedent, United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:38 am
Immanuel Baptist Church v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:00 am
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:00 am
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
6 May 2024, 2:34 pm
This was the case in SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 8:44 am
Johnson v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 8:39 am
Until 2016, different jurisdictions in the United States had different rules regarding art confiscated due to Nazi persecution. [read post]
6 May 2024, 7:38 am
It approved the US approach (Hilton v Guyot) to the effect that: ‘The application of the doctrine of comity means that the recognition of foreign decisions is not out of obligation, but rather out of convenience and utility’ [para 59]. [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:01 am
In Doe v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 7:11 pm
“We stated in MFW that the special committee must be independent, not that only a majority of the committee must be independent,” the high court said’, “A special committee created to secure the protections of MFW should function “in a manner which indicates that the controlling stockholder did not dictate the terms of the transaction and that the committee exercised real bargaining power at an arm’s length. [read post]
