Search for: "People v Santana"
Results 1 - 20
of 58
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2008, 1:16 pm
People v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 8:17 pm
United States v Roberts, 618 F2d 530), nor did her testimony usurp the jury's function to assess the informant's credibility (see People v Hayes, 226 AD2d 1055, 1056 lv denied 88 NY2d 936). [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 2:16 pm
In Design Home Remodeling Corp. v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 5:30 pm
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 7:59 pm
Kortum-Managhan v. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 10:31 am
— Emily V Gordon (@emilyvgordon) June 2, 2019 If you ever have a chance look up the @innocence They came to our campus and brought Raymond Santana to speak to us.. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 7:07 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 11:15 am
Thankfully Santana was not harassed for wielding his cell phone, but many people have been: officers have ordered people to stop recording, seized their devices, deleted the photos or video/audio recordings, and even arrested people. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 5:56 am
Newcomb v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 5:56 am
Newcomb v. [read post]
27 Jan 2007, 2:23 pm
People v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 3:46 am
Cir. 1970); People v. [read post]
8 Jun 2007, 3:19 pm
People v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 11:00 am
Específicamente, el juez Rehnquist explicó que: “[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution …. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 10:23 am
Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in the case of Vasilenko v. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 10:23 am
Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in the case of Vasilenko v. [read post]
14 Jul 2007, 6:18 am
The case before the Court is not a situation where the agents could have impounded an area, such as a locker, until a warrant was obtained, see People v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 1:44 pm
In Esquivel-Santana v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 5:46 am
LEXIS 39 (February 21, 2007): The State's argument unnecessarily expands Santana. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 6:29 am
Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1993), obviously does not apply to criminal matters involving poor people. [read post]
