Search for: "People v Legall" Results 1601 - 1620 of 30,853
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2020, 12:49 pm by Linda McClain
June 12th is Loving Day, a holiday celebrating the landmark case Loving v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 4:00 am by Noel Semple
The lawyer’s right to make a living cannot trump the rights of ordinary people to access justice Here is the Canadian Lawyer survey, (referred to by Jennifer Leitch) showing rising legal fees and profitability of family law: https://t.co/V9nvz6Ipzo? [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:48 am by Heather Douglas
With the emergence of technological alternatives, why should people choose to initiate a lawsuit in a provincial court? [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 6:59 pm by Brian Shiffrin
As you know, it has long been held that counsel fails to preserve for appellate review legal insufficiency claims when he has failed to raise the issue in a specific TOD motion (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:10 am by Lindsay Griffiths
In fact it’s not about building visibility v. building relationships, it’s about doing both. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 9:11 am by Eric Goldman
Feb. 18, 2020) Prior blog posts about Zillow: Another Failed Legal Challenge to Zillow’s Zestimate–EJ MGT v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 12:04 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  People v Wlasiuk ; 2011 NY Slip Op 09544 ; Decided on December 29, 2011 ; Appellate Division, Third Department  reads like one. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 6:28 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
ACLU, Feb. 29, 2024 "The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas today granted a motion for preliminary injunction to block Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4), which would permit local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:20 am by INFORRM
   This result was achieved by the introduction of a novel “threshold of seriousness” into the legal definition of what constitutes a “defamatory” imputation. [read post]