Search for: "Lesser v. Gray" Results 1 - 20 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
6 Nov 2010, 5:53 am by INFORRM
  Following his recent decision in Gray v UVW ([2010] EWHC 2367 (QB)), he again decided that, despite the parties having agreed a consent order including anonymity, the interests of the public required that the claimant be named. [read post]
12 Sep 2015, 6:43 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Kevin Gray, No. 109,912 (Sedgwick)Motion to correct illegal sentence appealCarl F.A. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 11:25 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Marvin Gray, 117,747 (Sedgwick)Direct appeal; First-degree premeditated murderMichelle A. [read post]
29 May 2007, 5:35 pm
  " Judge Gray decided that none of the arrangements or understandings alleged by the ACCC existed and dismissed the proceeding against the respondents who defended it. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 12:05 am
One of the participants, Joseph Gray, later that day struck a pregnant mother, her child and sister while allegedly driving under the influence and ultimately was convicted of manslaughter. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 2:24 pm
Nor did counsel request that the court submit to the jury the lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:20 pm by Donald Thompson
 Not every gunshot ineluctably results in serious physical injury (see, People v Gray, 30 AD3d 771 [3rd Dept 2006] [victim shot with shotgun from 20 feet away, evidence insufficient to establish serious physical injury]; see also, People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726 [1984] [gunshot injury does not by itself establish substantial pain as required for physical injury]; People v Francis, 112 AD2d 167 [2nd Dept 1985] [same]; People v Horton, 9 AD3d 503 [3rd Dept… [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 9:55 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
 Following Mr Justice Tugendhat’s recent decision in Gray v UVW ([2010] EWHC 2367 (QB)), he again decided that, despite the parties having agreed a consent order including anonymity, the interests of the public required that the claimant be named. [read post]
17 Apr 2020, 3:54 pm
  For something that seems to me such a more obvious shade of gray. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 7:44 am
Chief Justice Gray dissented without an opinion. [read post]