Search for: "People v. Cross"
Results 101 - 120
of 5,489
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2008, 8:12 am
People v. [read post]
13 Aug 2017, 8:03 am
In terms of legal doctrine, this case is virtually identical to the Cross v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 4:19 pm
See United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:16 am
In People v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:04 am
In Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 4:59 am
(People v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:17 am
(Forbes Cross-Post) California’s New Law Shows It’s Not Easy To Regulate Revenge Porn (Forbes Cross-Post) Court Denies Restraining Order Against Ex-Boyfriend Who Threatened to Post Revenge Porn — EC v. [read post]
28 Jul 2024, 3:23 pm
Drawing on its decision in People v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 1:01 pm
It's just a crazy -- and presumably -- unexpected twist in the law that results from a statutory patchwork of cross-references to which the Legislature presumably paid no (or almost no) attention.So Tirey -- who's been convicted of lewd conduct with two girls under 14 -- challenges the statute as a denial of equal protection. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
I’m just saying that if a religious symbol can be “secularized” at all, isn’t the cross pretty much already there when it comes to memorializing dead people? [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 4:21 am
Bivens v. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 1:25 pm
In today’s case (Siddall v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 4:19 pm
Marlo v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 9:01 am
Sure Superman can see through walls and fly faster than a speeding bullet, but how would he hold up on cross examination? [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 9:00 am
As we approach the 38th anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 11:47 am
The family relied on a 1971 case named Bivens v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 4:00 am
During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Gretna police prevented hundreds of people from crossing the Crescent City Connection. [read post]
7 Apr 2006, 1:46 pm
Another, to some extent the other side of the same coin, is whether the earlier opportunity should be deemed inadequate because some information that might have been used in cross and that is available at trial was not available at the time of the earlier proceeding.In People v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 7:16 am
In the most recent case, Dobbs v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 12:42 pm
I know that some people might disagree. [read post]
