Search for: "Smith v. People"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 3,477
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2017, 5:59 pm
The case was Echeverria v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 7:06 pm
Smith of the U.S. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in, R. v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 3:34 pm
In the past people had used candles and gas lamps. [read post]
23 Nov 2023, 7:04 am
” People ex Rel. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 1:28 pm
This is especially so when the Court recently held that the Property Clerk's failure to commence a forfeiture action within the 25 day period, after a timely demand is made, fatal; as held in the case of Property Clerk, New York City Police Department v Smith, decided by the First Department in 2009; Property Clerk, New York City Police Department v Seroda, also decided by First Department in 1987. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 8:44 am
Florida v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 10:44 pm
Florida v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:36 am
R (Peat and others) v Hyndburn DC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin) is the first successful challenge to a selective licensing scheme. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:36 am
R (Peat and others) v Hyndburn DC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin) is the first successful challenge to a selective licensing scheme. [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 4:17 am
(See People v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 9:46 am
Portuondo, 486 F.3d 61,65 (2d Cir. 2007); Smith v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 9:46 am
Portuondo, 486 F.3d 61,65 (2d Cir. 2007); Smith v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:09 am
Supreme Court to strike down a new Mississippi law that lets government workers and business people cite their own religious objections to refuse services to LGBT people. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 3:36 pm
In these circumstances and absent an error of principle, an appellate court will be very cautious in differing from the judge's evaluation: see SmithKline Beecham's Patent [2006] RPC 323 at [38] per Lord Hoffmann; Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1715 at [24] to [25] per Jacob LJ" 3. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 2:26 pm
In Beavers v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 9:11 am
I guess we'll see.]Pamela Shareka Langham v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 8:45 pm
One of the leading cases on this approach is Eagleman v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:59 am
Smith, 132 S. [read post]
