Search for: "People v Staine"
Results 161 - 164
of 164
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2007, 6:25 am
Given the victim's age and intelligence, the Court of Appeals was of the opinion that it was inexcusable for the prosecution to have failed (or refused) to supply a clearer time frame for the event(s) which led to the criminal charge and was compelled to dismiss the case in its entirety.No merit badges will be awarded here.For a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision, please use this link: People v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 5:13 pm
But if the housewife is shown using Tide to get out an awful stain (of what kind, she didn't specify), P&G would be responsible for substantiation.Q: So what if a teen just wears a "Drink Coke" shirt, like a product placement? [read post]
10 Dec 2006, 9:15 pm
V, pp. 17-22, 44-53, 58-64, 184-187, 212-214; a selection can also be found here at 208-213.) [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 8:31 am
I've read through Jose Padilla's motion (written by the Federal Defender's Office -- Michael Caruso, Orlando do Campo, and Tony Natale) to dismiss for outrageous government conduct, which I originally covered last week here. [read post]
