Search for: "Doe v. Hendricks" Results 21 - 40 of 89
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2012, 8:46 am by Brian Shiffrin
Under those circumstances, we conclude that defendant did not knowingly waive his right to appeal with respect to Supreme Court's denial of the request by defendant for youthful offender status at sentencing (see generally People v McCarthy, 83 AD3d 1533, lv denied 17 NY3d 819; People v Fehr, 303 AD2d 1039, lv denied 100 NY2d 538; People v Hendricks, 270 AD2d 944). [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 1:28 pm
Updating this ILB entry from September 25th on the Court of Appeals decision in the case of John Doe v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 3:00 pm
In Hendricks, however, the Kansas statute required that all of the elements of the past sexually violent conduct be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus Hendricks does not stand for the proposition that the application of a lower standard of proof for those retrospective factual determinations is proper. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 9:25 pm by Josh Blackman
None of them have ever argued that Kacsmaryk, Tipton, or Hendricks is incapable of being fair. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 11:55 pm
Supreme Court in Kansas v Hendricks because it does not link an individual's mental illness to his dangerousness. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 10:35 am
For publication opinions today (2): In Hendricks County Board of Commissioners v. [read post]
25 May 2008, 8:18 pm
Supreme court case was JOHN DOE I, JANE DOE, and JOHN DOE II v OTTE and BOTELHOIssue: Ex Post Facto Clause:Stogner v. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 8:01 pm
Supreme Court in Kansas v Hendricks because it does not link an individual's mental illness to his dangerousness. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 5:00 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Of course, summer doesn't start until baseball does, and even that is coming fast. [read post]