Search for: "People v. Cole" Results 1 - 20 of 448
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2007, 10:25 am
We've received a large volume of emails, including detailed notes from a few people who attended the oral arguments in Murphy v. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 1:18 pm
No reason to kill massive numbers of trees, I figure.Indeed, besides its sheer (and unusual) length, the only reason to mention the opinion is because it's a case from San Diego and involves a white collar defendant named Kevin Cole. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 10:36 pm by Simon Gibbs
The Court of Appeal has recently given us a useful reminder of some of the basic principles in the case of Ghadami & Ghadami v Lyon Cole Insurance Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 767. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
In the light of this case, and indeed others such as P G & J H v United Kingdom (Application 44787/98) and Peck v United Kingdom 44647/98 [2003] ECHR 44 (2003) 36 EHRR 41, it may safely now be said that it is not possible for those who wish to intrude upon the lives of individuals through surveillance, and associated photography, to rely upon a rigid distinction being drawn in their favour what takes place in private and activities capable of being… [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 5:18 am by Benjamin Wittes
 The Supreme Court held in Holder v. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 4:02 am by Philip Thomas
The case is a fee dispute among lawyers over the presumed multi-million dollar settlement in the Jasper County Cole v. [read post]
10 Sep 2016, 11:31 pm
This owes, in large part, to the High Court of Australia’s unanimous decision[1]in Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 8:23 am by dmcgowan
Steve pointed me to the Illinois Supreme Court's opinion in People v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 5:00 pm
The document is largely unintelligible, but purports to be an agreement between Cole (as principal) and the investor. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 6:00 am by Keith Paul Bishop
 The Commissioner undertook this rulemaking project following the Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 6:12 am by Michael D. Smith
The DHE had complied with this obligation by advertising the position in a place where Mr Coles could see it, in the same way as all other people working for the DHE could. [read post]