Search for: "People v. Read (1983)"
Results 1 - 20
of 740
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2022, 11:11 am
For the reasons Judge Pryor identified, Kagan's reading of Section 1983 would run into the anti-commandeering principle. [read post]
13 May 2009, 12:35 pm
PubPat v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 12:33 am
Summary This case relates to a point of statutory construction in the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 90C(1)(a). [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 5:31 am
But if Maine v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:09 am
Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational fact finder could conclude that defendant acquired the video and exercised control over it and the images (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 1:14 pm
New posts at Section 1983 Blog, including one on Al-Kidd v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 2:46 pm
Then I read more of the opinion. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm
Case v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 1:36 pm
(People v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 2:15 pm
I admire people who read widely in law, watching doctrine develope from circuit to cicuit. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 2:05 pm
We recently rejected a similar argument in People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 12:55 pm
The issue is deceptive, reading as a mere mundanity. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 12:42 pm
Usually after I read a 1983 case on qualified immunity which ends in a determination that the defendant (usually a cop, sometimes a state official) is entitled to qualified immunity, there is a great celebration amongst whoever beat someone up! [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 5:27 am
And unlike the typical situation involving excised language (where courts would read something out of a statute), the issue here is whether the omission warrants reading qualified immunity into Section 1983. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 12:01 pm
Who fled that country in 1983 and who's been fighting against that communist nation ever since. [read post]
10 Jan 2023, 4:39 am
The Tribunal noted that, though the church premises was registered under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, in order to be exempt from rating a building must additionally be a place of public religious worship [50], citing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning [1964] AC 420, Broxtowe v Birch [1983] 1 WLR 314 and Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2008] 1 WLR 1852. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 11:41 am
Over decades.You can read the entire opinion for details about the legions of children Valenti molested. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 1:15 pm
In Connick v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 4:14 am
Here is the opinion in People v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 8:14 am
If you keep reading, you will get the gift of knowledge. [read post]
