Search for: "People v. Conte"
Results 161 - 180
of 259
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm
It is to be noted that the key is whether the defendant has been afforded an opportunity to refute those aggravating factors which may have negatively influenced the court as held in People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 4:15 pm
Otherwise, an offender could avoid sex offender registration requirements simply by moving his or her state of residence, thereby frustrating the purpose behind sex offender registration laws as in People v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 3:46 pm
This is pursuant to CPL 470.05[2] and the court’s ruling in the case of People v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:05 pm
Gonzalez, 262 AD2d 281; Silver v. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 6:04 am
Dist. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 1:36 pm
Righthaven v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 3:44 pm
For the reasons set forth above, the court does not believe that was the intended purpose of CPL § 180.50 and refuses to adopt the People's argument. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 5:25 pm
As held in US v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 1:28 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 11:01 am
Germany v. [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 4:12 am
He is being held without bail at the Joseph V. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
Since the court did not enter any factual findings, as it does when a parent consents to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1051(a) of the Family Court Act in Article X proceedings, no adjudication on the merits took place (Mirelle F. v Renol F., 4 Misc 3d 1011(a) [Sup Ct Queens County 2004]) and there is nothing which could affect or bind the Petitioner in the future (Metz v People, 73 Misc 2d 219 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1973]; Lockwood v Lockwood, 23 Misc… [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 11:38 am
Since the court did not enter any factual findings, as it does when a parent consents to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1051(a) of the Family Court Act in Article X proceedings, no adjudication on the merits took place (Mirelle F. v Renol F., 4 Misc 3d 1011(a) [Sup Ct Queens County 2004]) and there is nothing which could affect or bind the Petitioner in the future (Metz v People, 73 Misc 2d 219 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1973]; Lockwood v Lockwood, 23 Misc… [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 6:31 pm
Cont'l Ins. [read post]
25 Dec 2015, 5:00 am
GlaxoSmithKline in Illinois and especially Conte v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 12:33 pm
See Kam Lee Yuen Trading Co. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 4:33 pm
.' In People v. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 3:08 pm
In those cases, there may still be claims against the original drug manufacturer under the so-called Innovator Liability theory, first described in California in Conte v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 8:03 am
" But in Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 2:44 pm
” Third Issue: The People cited the case of People v. [read post]
