Search for: "People v. Golden" Results 21 - 40 of 685
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2011, 5:43 pm by lennyesq
Pataki in 2005. *** Judge Cherished Opinions Standing Up for the ‘Little Guy’ In In re Golden, 56 AD3d 1109 (2008), Justice Cardona concluded that both common law and state Human Services Law permit transgendered individuals to legally assume a new name to reflect their new identification; in People v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:26 am by Rosalind English
Option 1 was rejected as too narrow, leaving the possibility that serious errors of law affecting large numbers of people would go uncorrected. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 10:00 am by Georgialee Lang
A talented musician and actress with Grammy nominations and a Golden Globe nomination for her role in the movie “The People v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 10:14 am by Kent Scheidegger
  Unlike most people today, I remember what it was like in America, particularly in the South, before the Act, as contrasted with after. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 11:24 pm
Manohla Dargis describes a scene in the new movie "Elizabeth: The Golden Age":Declaiming from atop her white horse, her legs now conspicuously parted as she straddles the jittery, stamping animal, she invokes God and country, blood and honor, life and death, bringing to mind at once Joan of Arc, Henry V, Winston Churchill and Tony Blair in one gaspingly unbelievable, cinematically climactic moment. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 9:44 pm
I once taught a case on Domino's in Business Organizations called Parker v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 1:00 pm
No one yet knows how SCOTUS will rule in King v Burntwell, but that hasn't stopped the doomsayers from claiming that a gazillion people will "lose their subsidies" should Plaintiff (King) prevail.No, they won't.That's because you can't lose something to which you were never entitled.The fact of the matter is, should SCOTUS insist that the law be applied as it was written, then folks in states using the 404Care.gov site were never eligible to receive… [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 9:15 am
Out of the 24 decisions handed down so far by SCOTUS this term, I award the coveted "Golden Blinkers" prize for most Senselessly Formalistic Statutory Interpretation to Watson v United States (06-571). [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 7:48 am by Greg Robinson
My intention is to explore the subject through the prism of the1942-3 legal case Regan v. [read post]