Search for: "People v. Moore" Results 1 - 20 of 1,051
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Dec 2010, 1:49 am by sally
R (Moore) v Skipton Fund Ltd [2010] EWHC 3070 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 308 “For the purposes of a claim for an ex gratia payment from public funds, there was nothing irrational or unfair in requiring certain people infected with hepatitis C through treatment with NHS blood or blood products prior to September 1991, to show that spontaneous clearance of the virus after a period of six months had occurred. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 4:02 pm
Moore, about which I had this post earlier.The people I talked to in Williamsburg seemed to think the argument went well for the Commonwealth, but then the ones telling me this all had a rooting interest. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 9:09 am by Steve Lubet
Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. [read post]
25 May 2013, 2:30 pm
 People are often careless in conversation and in informal writings. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 11:22 am
  The California Supreme Court appoints attorney Cynthia Thomas to represent Moore on appeal (he wants to represent himself, but we don't do that), and she does the oral argument.One problem. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 2:29 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The law does not require the same degree of proof to hold a defendant for action of the Grand Jury as is demanded for conviction; however, the proof must be sufficient on its face to sustain conviction of the defendant akin to People v Eckert and People v Donahue. [read post]
30 May 2008, 3:32 pm
Marshall told the en banc Fifth Circuit that Moore had a 74 IQ (people with a 70 IQ or lower are considered mentally retarded). [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:00 pm by Vikram David Amar
(For more evidence of lawyerly shabbiness in earlier stages of Moore v. [read post]
22 Dec 2021, 2:26 pm
As explained in the case for which it is named, People v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 12:47 pm
Why did it take almost four full years after the discovery of the fraud to file criminal charges? [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:45 pm
The Court of Appeal repeatedly tells trial courts not to try to explain the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" because it just mucks things up and results in reversals. [read post]