Search for: "People v. Davis (1994)" Results 41 - 60 of 132
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2022, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
In a 1994 Harvard Law Reviewarticle (an article, interestingly enough, cited by the Court’s conservative wing in a 2015 ISL case, Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 11:39 am by Layla Kuhl
In People v Tomasik, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (1994). [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 1:04 pm by Jon Sands
This was largely because the California Supreme Court ordered a hearing on the petitioner's claim under People v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
As Counsel notes, the evident intent of the subdivision (c) is to ‘protect the people’s initiative powers by precluding the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without the electorate’s consent. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 11:12 am by Eugene Volokh
My students Tess Curet, Nathan Davis, and Michael Smith worked on the brief. [read post]
28 Apr 2007, 6:52 pm
  The Court has not yet said whether the state can strike jurors because of their religion; in Davis v. [read post]