Search for: "People v. Case (1980)"
Results 161 - 180
of 1,862
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2012, 7:31 am
The case of Macias v. [read post]
21 Apr 2018, 1:40 pm
White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Garcia v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:01 pm
A.D. 2002) (Bexis’ case); Alvarez v. [read post]
2 May 2015, 7:42 am
”) People v. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm
Citing cases like United States v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:20 am
In the 1966 case of South Carolina v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 1:36 pm
In cases stemming from Michigan’s 1981 Poletown Neighborhood Council v. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 8:30 am
I want to supplement Elena Chachko’s useful analysis of Wednesday’s International Court of Justice decision in the case of Iran v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 3:02 pm
In Schreiber v. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 8:27 am
S. 74, 88 (1980). [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 8:13 am
"The early 1980s marked both the period of my adolescent hunger for an urbane, grown-up life in New York and the dawn of VHS, enabling the obsessive consumption of movies, which in my case meant the obsessive consumption of movies by Woody Allen. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 9:07 am
Graham v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 9:48 am
Supreme Court case that first established sexual harassment as a form of unlawful gender discrimination, Meritor Savings Bank v. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 4:55 am
I cannot believe that the people would accept forcing women into combat. [read post]
29 May 2014, 9:48 am
Supreme Court case that first established sexual harassment as a form of unlawful gender discrimination, Meritor Savings Bank v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 12:27 pm
A little Friday trivia to start your happy hour/weekend (where do people go for happy hour these days anyway? [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 3:29 pm
The book includes Washington cases, such as Washington v. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 6:57 am
The facts of this case suggest to me that the Second Circuit was not about to give this guy any leeway.The case is Jones v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 6:20 am
Indeed, in Shadid v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 2:14 pm
The consequence of this mathematics means that the purveyor of the tuna does not have warn consumers that the tuna violates Prop 65.The state didn't like that outcome and filed suit against the purveyor, in a case entitled People v. [read post]
