Search for: "People v. Davis (1996)" Results 1 - 20 of 121
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2020, 5:00 pm by Michael Douglas
Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418, 429 (Dawson and McHugh JJ), 445 (Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ). [8] Ibid, quoted in RCD Holdings (n 1) [57]. [9] Ibid, [58]. [10] Ibid. [11] See, eg, British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368; Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp (2004) 138 FCR 496, 506; Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419.… [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 6:38 pm by Donald Thompson
 This duty of fair dealing encompasses an obligation to ensure fairness in grand jury submissions (People v Pelchat, supra; People v Jordan, 153 AD2d 263 [2nd Dept 1990]; People v Russo, 128 Misc2d 876, 880 [Co Ct Suffolk Co 1985]), which includes notice of the grand jury proceedings that gives a defendant a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to testify, not mere technical compliance with minimum statutory notice requirements… [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 3:03 pm by admin
In the documentary, Davis says people have been “coming after” him for twenty-years. [read post]
21 May 2015, 3:49 pm by Stephen Bilkis
We have previously noted that when a statute imposes criminal liability for knowingly disregarding a risk, it does not require a particular outcome or actions aimed at a specific individual; the crime is solely defined by the risk of injury produced by defendant's conduct (see, People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 36-37). [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 4:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
(See Sun Graphics Corp. v Levy, Davis & Maher, LLP, 94 AD3d 669, 669 [I st Dept 2012], citing Stanski v Ezersky, 228 AD2d 311, 313 [1st Dept 1996].) [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 9:49 am by J
Most people would say that they can’t: see, e.g. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 9:49 am by J
Most people would say that they can’t: see, e.g. [read post]
And sometimes the Constitution calls to us—to We the People—to remind us of what is best in our national character, and of the difficulties we encounter when we lose sight of our core commitments and succumb to factional divisions fueled by the passions of the moment.Justice Kennedy’s opinion in an earlier LGB rights case from 1996, Romer v. [read post]