Search for: "People v. Dugan"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2015, 1:53 pm
The number of people answering "not in favor" to Gallup's poorly worded basic question is the highest it has been since before Furman v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 11:38 am
You mean to tell me that people who use and sell illegal drugs don't have a right under the Second Amendment to possess and ship firearms in interstate commerce? [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot to amend… [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898,… [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 8:05 am
Among these cases is the decision in Dugan v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 5:39 am
State v. [read post]
18 Jun 2011, 5:36 am
SUNDAY NRL round 14: Canberra Raiders v Brisbane Broncos at Suncorp Stadium, 2pm. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 11:43 am
Stern and Bowen v. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 6:30 am
" In 2013, UCLA Law School's Supreme Court Clinic filed a petition for certiorari in Dugan v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 2:42 pm
People v. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 8:48 pm
Dugan, Partner at Covington and Burling on behalf of the Financial Services Coordinating Council, Before the U.S. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 2:04 pm
Sansi North America, LLC v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 10:00 am
Most consumers agree that intellectual property law is essential to ensure that creators of inventions, ideas, designs, services and the like are rewarded for their creativity and to promote the continuation of such creations.[1] In order to grant creators with the incentive to continue creating, such creators must be equipped with the satisfaction of knowing that their creations will not be transformed into cheap imitations which will inevitably compete with their own original creations. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:06 am
For example, in Ting v. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 1:39 am
Gerlach Livestock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950); and Dugan v. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 1:09 pm
Co. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2021, 12:08 pm
In yesterday's Hepp v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 1:49 pm
For example Williams v. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am
Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs; Abigail Golden-Vázquez, vice president and founding executive director of the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program; and Amb. [read post]
