Search for: "People v Court"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 61,624
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2016, 2:04 pm
The Attorney General filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeal affirms,Wholly beyond the merits of the statutory dispute, I think a couple of things practically help to explain the Court of Appeal's ruling. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 4:48 pm
” The trial court held that the fact that Bradford was "armed" with these wire cutters meant he was "armed with a deadly weapon".Thank goodness the Court of Appeal was more rational.Sure, we classify a boatload of things as "deadly weapons" here in California. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 1:48 pm
The term "Chapete" has indeed been used (and discussed) by the Court of Appeal before. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 1:29 pm
And the California Supreme Court took over four years after all the briefs were in to adjudicate the thing.)Way too long. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 3:26 pm
” The Court of Appeal responds: "No, thanks. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 11:11 am
"The Court of Appeal respectfully disagrees. [read post]
20 Apr 2021, 4:42 pm
So the California Supreme Court has to figure out the right rule.As soon as possible. [read post]
31 Jul 2024, 1:30 pm
Regardless of their race.The Court of Appeal nonetheless reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by finding the prosecutor's reasons for his peremptory strike of this juror race-neutral.That's a tough one for me. [read post]
22 May 2022, 2:13 pm
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
Code § 3370.1 (stats. 1972, ch. 1084, p. 2021), cited in People v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 7:34 am
In the Court’s view, there’s no need to distinguish Bull v Hall – indeed, the Court does not once reference the case – because this simply isn’t a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 2:27 pm
The trial court says (essentially), "Really? [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 1:20 pm
But, here, the victim said she saw his penis, and the Court of Appeal decides to follow an earlier Court of Appeal opinion that says you don't have to see the penis anyway, so it's a moot point. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 1:14 pm
Whereas, today, the Court of Appeal disagrees with that opinion, and holds that there is, in fact, a right to appeal.Okay. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 4:43 pm
On July 14, 2009, the Court of Appeals published its Per Curiam Opinion in the consolidated matters of State of Michigan v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 12:51 pm
Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.If the Supreme Court does take up my case, I hope the justices can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.The case is Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm
On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Limited and another (Appellants) UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 7:39 pm
Worcester v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
The State of New York Court of Appeals strictly limited “all persons-present” warrants in People v. [read post]
5 May 2017, 2:35 pm
Supreme Court ruled in 2015, in Obergefell v. [read post]
