Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Reader"
Results 141 - 160
of 6,591
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
Now, if I were to ask others if they identified with that statement, many would not (our readers notwithstanding), and that’s actually quite natural. [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 8:55 am
Kyiv, Turkey v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 1:51 pm
In Appendix B to his opinion for the Court today in Brown v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 2:59 pm
Fundamentally, the headline leaves the reader with the impression that innocent people are held in jail. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 2:48 am
As a followup on the interrelationship of KSR v. [read post]
29 Dec 2019, 8:25 am
Similarly, in People v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 4:26 pm
I’d be very curious to hear from your readers how many people have ever taken advantage of this statute—and, as I suspect the anser is “few,” to learn why more people don’t feel comfortable in using it. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 1:37 pm
(Eugene Volokh) The case is People v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 8:19 pm
Readers, please chime in and share your thoughts. [read post]
5 Dec 2009, 1:16 pm
The latest issue of the libertarian magazine Reason has an interesting essay by Brian Doherty on the briefing in McDonald v. [read post]
3 Dec 2007, 8:25 pm
I'm a regular reader and look forward to having a chance to share some thoughts. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 11:32 am
In UMG v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:01 pm
" —Chapman v. [read post]
3 May 2009, 3:12 pm
That seems likely to to be the case with the decision of the the court of Appeals in People v Mattocks (_ NY3d _, 2009 NY Slip Op 03408[4/30/09) a decision which mostly addresses whether creasing a Metrocard to fool the card reader into allowing unpaid swipes constitutes forgery. [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:00 pm
See Beclar Corp. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 5:15 am
Does that make us horrible people? [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 3:23 pm
(Campbell v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
Federal law prohibits paying people to vote. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
On the other hand, cosmetics -- substances people put on their faces -- involve a significantly intimate connection that no manufacturer wants to include a cancer warning with makeup. [read post]
1 Sep 2008, 11:04 am
Thanks to a faithful reader "Scott" who brought this to our attention.In an Arizona case, Atlantic v. [read post]
