Search for: "Fields v. People" Results 1561 - 1580 of 4,897
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am by Bill Marler
At least 147 people were sickened and more than 33 people died[1]. [read post]
5 May 2010, 5:32 pm
See, People v Gams (1997) 52 CA 4th 147 and California Penal Code Section 13710 (b), Family Code section 6345, California Code Civil Procedure section 533. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 11:03 am by Stephen Bilkis
She may only be guilty of a violation of section 81 of the Penal law as held in People v. [read post]
15 Jul 2008, 5:59 pm
  A majority of the court, in a July 9 decision affirming the "indecent exposure" conviction of Richard Moss, State v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm by Matt Sundquist
During Monday’s oral argument in Astrue v. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 3:48 pm
Essex Trading Standards v Wallati Singh [2009] EWHC 520 (Admin) is a Divisional Court (England and Wales) decision from 3 March which the IPKat nearly missed completely. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Judge Alex Kozinsky of the Ninth Circuit, a Jew born in Romania and the son of Holocaust survivors wrote a particularly striking dissent in the 2002 case of Silverado v. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 3:38 am
Among other things, Michael's blog portrayed his father as a fear-inducing, hateful person who `instigate[d]’ arguments with his children to get a `big win,’ used money to control people, and subjected his children to `child abuse. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 10:02 pm by Liz Bradshaw
Notes from the Field: Increase in Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infections Associated with Consumption of Atlantic Coast Shellfish – 2013. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 2:58 am
Decisions that relate to Article 8(5) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTM) -- and the question of conceptual similarity -- and which are likely to develop this field of law further are far and few between. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 6:30 am
But of the various cases I have read on the subject of dueling, the language in Smith v. [read post]