Search for: "People v. Grant (1985)"
Results 1 - 20
of 567
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2011, 7:05 am
The Court also vacated its earlier grant of leave to appeal in People v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 12:32 am
The opinion below is People v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 1:58 pm
You may perhaps be granted parole, but the trial court properly found that you're not entitled to resentencing. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:00 pm
The other grant that week was Blueford v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 5:21 pm
The evening of July 18, 1985 was pleasant. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 4:10 pm
The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 10:32 am
(Emphasis added.)Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion concurring in the grant of the application for stay in Andino v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:11 pm
(People v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
Wheeldin v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:29 am
One of the people ran into the apartment in question. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 8:42 am
See United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 12:05 pm
The case is Nabors Wells Servs. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 8:33 am
In granting the appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the reviewing judge had erred by conducting a judicial review of what amounts to a legislative action contrary to the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 10:33 am
The attitude behind this hard Brexit concept was reflected in Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech at the Conservative Party conference in late September: “[t]oo many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:10 pm
Street (1985) 471 U.S. 409, 414; see also People v. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 6:54 am
In M.A.T. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 5:01 am
He argues that Clinton v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 3:01 am
The court also ruled in 1985 that the term visibly intoxicated refers to people intoxicated by controlled substances, alcohol or both in Blunt v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
The result of this invidious doctrine, as formulated in Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] 1 AC 168, meant that “if two people set out to commit an offence (crime A), and in the course of that joint enterprise, one of them (D1) commits another offence (crime B), the second person (D2) is guilty as an accessory to crime B if he has foreseen the possibility that D1 might act as he did. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 12:24 pm
Anchor Hanover Group v Cox (2023) UKUT 14 (LC) (Copy of judgment here. [read post]
