Search for: "People v. Burden"
Results 1 - 20
of 7,521
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2018, 4:16 pm
In People v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 7:17 am
(I believe that it should, as do most people who have studied the issue.) [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 9:23 pm
I think most people in Canada are aware that in a criminal case in Canada, the Crown has to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.But in a civil lawsuit, the standard is different. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 10:08 am
Requiring people to do something that “is forbidden by [their] faith” qualifies as a substantial burden on religious practice. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 10:24 am
The opinion in People v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
Although I have seen smart people suggest this argument as something one or more Justices might endorse, I have difficulty taking it seriously. [read post]
22 Aug 2006, 7:52 am
Miedema v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 8:45 am
No less than Judge Jack Weinstein, certainly a friend to the notion that “all evidence is probabilistic,” showed in his informal survey of federal judges of the Eastern District of New York, that judges have no idea of what probability corresponds to the criminal burden of proof: U.S. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 9:04 pm
People v Bulgin, 2010 NY Slip Op 20290, 2010 N.Y. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 11:56 am
In Dobbs v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
” After Gonzales v. [read post]
14 May 2009, 9:05 pm
People v. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 6:52 am
Comm’n v. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 7:49 am
The three people inside the car – two men and one woman – jumped out and started running away when the officer approached. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 12:40 pm
The Case of People v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 12:40 pm
The Case of People v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 10:33 am
Gauthier v. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 12:02 pm
The court, ruling in Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 9:01 pm
In State v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 2:47 pm
Thus, primarily because of the "legal stigma" attached to warrantless and suspicionless stops, the People bear the burden of proving at a suppression hearing that the particular checkpoint in question was conducted in a non-discretionary manner, that is, the officers did not exercise individual discretion as to which cars to stop or what questions to ask akin to People v Cabrera. [read post]
