Search for: "People v. Bailey (1983)"
Results 1 - 20
of 22
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2022, 5:00 pm
And these were people hellbent on killing and destroying people’s lives. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:10 am
Bailey, 270 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2001). [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 7:17 pm
In Bailey v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
, 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 4:00 am
” And at page 71 they state: Looking to the longer term, then, the future of legal services is unlikely to look like John Grisham or Rumpole of the [Old] Bailey. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 7:23 am
If he does so, he may not hide behind the veil of qualified immunity,” the appeals court declared (Bailey v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 12:50 pm
Nolan, 700 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1983) (so noting); see also State v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 12:50 pm
Nolan, 700 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1983) (so noting); see also State v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:21 am
This issue haunted the courts until 1983, when the case of R v Williams came before the Court of Appeal. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
Bailey, Leon Gordis, and Michael D. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Wheelahan v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
Bailey, Kristin L. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:07 pm
It ruled that this goal must be pursued under the Court’s one-person, one-vote mandate and the Court’s 1983 ruling in Karcher v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Nail v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
It invites juries to decide cases on improper bases – that all these people wouldn’t be suing unless something was wrong. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 1:02 pm
(1983), 47 B.C.L.R. 252 (C.A [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 21, 2008 US v. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 4:16 am
" (Gregg v. [read post]
19 Jan 2008, 11:58 am
§ 1983. [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 1:50 pm
Bailey, No. 06-5576 Defendant's conviction and sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses are affirmed over claims that: 1) a prior Kentucky state court conviction for second-degree escape did not qualify for a career offender enhancement; 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions; and 3) the district court erred in enhancing his Guidelines offense level after finding that he had perjured himself at trial. [read post]
