Search for: "People v. Story" Results 1441 - 1460 of 9,951
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2014, 5:13 am by Amy Howe
Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that lawyers for James Holmes, who is charged with killing twelve people and injuring many more in a 2012 shooting at a Colorado movie theater, have filed a cert. petition seeking review of a ruling by New York’s highest court in favor of a journalist who has declined to reveal her sources for a story about the shooting. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 10:50 am by Philip Segal
Black Cube may not have committed any crimes, but appears from the facts in the story to have gone over the ethical line in pretending to be people they were not. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 2:01 pm by Gerard N. Magliocca
Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people. [read post]
26 Sep 2008, 7:34 pm
The Canadian Press story mentions this (and a number of other consumer-oriented promises). [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 12:44 pm
I think many people have assumed that the Court would hear both cases together, but in talking to people much more in the know than I am, I did not have the same impression. [read post]
6 May 2008, 9:44 am
Mildred Loving, a plaintiff in the landmark case Loving v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 3:00 am by Jeff Welty
I blogged here about United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 1:54 pm by NARF
Parker (Tribal Exhaustion) State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2022.html People in Interest of M.M. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 10:29 am by Jonathan Bailey
Note: Commenter Åsk Dabitch reminded me I omitted the Kelly v. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 6:12 pm
The numbers statewide show a similar story, arrests did spike however in 2015 when 47 people were arrested. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 6:12 pm
The numbers statewide show a similar story, arrests did spike however in 2015 when 47 people were arrested. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]