Search for: "People v. Davis (1994)"
Results 41 - 60
of 132
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2016, 6:57 am
Smith v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 8:11 am
It was published in Advertising Age on January 31, 1994, and you can read the whole thing here. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am
From a panel decision Bennie v. [read post]
29 May 2016, 5:20 am
In Padilla v. [read post]
24 May 2016, 11:10 am
Davis, 305 N.C. 400 (1982). [read post]
24 May 2016, 11:10 am
Davis, 305 N.C. 400 (1982). [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 1:04 pm
This was largely because the California Supreme Court ordered a hearing on the petitioner's claim under People v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:22 pm
References Bell BP, Goldoft M, Griffin PM, Davis MA, Gordon DC, Tarr PI, Bartleson CA, Lewis JH, Barrett TJ, Wells JG, et al., (1994). [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
In Mills, the plaintiff claimed that, due to a variant gene (“CYP”), she could not metabolize the defendant’s drug as well as most other people. [read post]
19 May 2015, 5:12 pm
As outlined in People v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:20 pm
Not every gunshot ineluctably results in serious physical injury (see, People v Gray, 30 AD3d 771 [3rd Dept 2006] [victim shot with shotgun from 20 feet away, evidence insufficient to establish serious physical injury]; see also, People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726 [1984] [gunshot injury does not by itself establish substantial pain as required for physical injury]; People v Francis, 112 AD2d 167 [2nd Dept 1985] [same]; People v… [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994) (use of undercover police officer’s identity in film protected by First Amendment); Rogers v. [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]
20 Aug 2014, 11:27 am
Yeager v. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 12:00 pm
Davis v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 4:59 am
Davis, supra, and Doe v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
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]
19 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court in 2012 in Arizona v. [read post]
