Search for: "P. v. Childs"
Results 1 - 20
of 2,941
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2011, 2:15 am
Regina v D (N); Regina v P (A); Regina v U (S) [2011] WLR (D) 166 “Evidence that a defendant had viewed child pornography was capable of being adduced in evidence at trial under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to demonstrate a propensity for offences involving the sexual abuse of children. [read post]
1 May 2007, 1:55 am
Crown Prosecution Service v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 10:26 am
In Josefina O. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 10:03 am
In its published decision in Deluna v. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 4:33 pm
Pusey v. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 5:13 am
Recently, they were involved in an appellate case, DCP&P v. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 5:13 am
Recently, they were involved in an appellate case, DCP&P v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 1:16 pm
Div., A-3338-09T2, March 11, 2011: Newburgh v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:43 pm
MICHELLE P. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:17 pm
C.R. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 2:52 pm
Berk, No. 08-CR-212-P-S (D. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 6:34 am
Pierce, 110 N.M. 76, 792 P.2d 408 (New Mexico Supreme Court 1990); see Benton v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 8:28 pm
State, 982 P.2d 139, 146-47 (Wyo. 1999)14. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 1:18 pm
Law Lessons from IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN P. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:40 am
P. 3(d) (2019).2 Plaintiff promptly filed a response to the motion to dismiss and filed a petition for writ of certiorari. [read post]
19 May 2008, 9:49 am
It does not require that someone actually possess child p*rnography. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 6:52 am
Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 124 P.3d 756 (Arizona Court of Appeals 2005), quoting State v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
(Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. at p. 1746; Samaniego v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:32 am
P. 28(b)(6). [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 3:28 pm
Two people who had a longstanding intimate relationship, conceived a child as a "sperm donor," broke up, and have subsequently fought for years and multiple appeals over whether Jason P. should have any legal parental rights.This one uses first names instead of pure initials. [read post]
