Search for: "People v. Wear"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 2,639
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2014, 4:04 am
Garcia v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
In Hayden v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 6:14 am
” By nightfall, most people had barred their doors, shuttered their windows, and gone to bed. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:00 pm
The conduct was certainly disturbing, but the court, in Washington v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 4:05 pm
People are forced to devise increasingly bizarre ways to express their thoughts. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 1:44 pm
In other words, yeah, the Court expressly confirmed that there was no deadly weapon charge, but this guy who was thinking about defending himself should have known that the person wearing the black robes was totally wrong because he should have read and interpreted the complaint and transcript for himself -- things that would have made the right answer totally clear. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 11:56 am
In a recent case, Mastec North America, Inc. et al., v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 1:26 pm
And this was a pretty decent case in which to articulate this vision, one in which the defendant was forced to wear a 50,000 volt stun belt during trial for little to no reason. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 2:42 pm
Not Texas-shoot-someone-or-wear-stupid-hats angry. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:33 am
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided Jeffrey Cookson v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:32 am
& Rawle 394 (Pa. 1824); People v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 3:57 am
State Univ. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 4:17 am
Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (female Pentecostal employee who objected to having to wear pants); Kalsi v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 6:28 am
In Correctional Services Corp. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 9:07 am
In Masson v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 5:49 pm
It’s funny what people will put out as satire and art nowadays—though, I don’t have any thing wrong with it. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
It seems that the complete duplication may be “excessive”, in light of the quantity, quality and importance of the material used (Blanch v Koons).Bruno is unimpressed with the dumb Starbucks crownhe has to wear to make his significant human happyIn relation to market effects, would the hundreds of people queuing up for Dumb Starbucks have alternately visited the original coffee retailer that day? [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:31 am
The question boils down to the meaning of the phrase "changing clothes" under the Fair Labor Standards Act.The case is Sandifer v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 9:42 pm
The Judge held that the average consumer included people in the Jack Wills target group, namely younger people, but also included older people, including those who purchased clothes as gifts for younger people. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 1:16 pm
People v. [read post]
