Search for: "People v. Hicks" Results 1 - 20 of 116
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Sep 2019, 12:36 pm
Justice Hoffstadt begins today's opinion by saying the following:"Earlier this year, one of our sister courts in People v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 3:02 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  The California Supreme Court decided yesterday in People v. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 12:44 pm
And people seem to file briefs and write opinions using both spellings.There are various writs that are described by putting the "sur" in a separate word (e.g., sur cui in vita and sur disclaimer), but those merely seem derived from the Latin "sur" and so are only marginally helpful. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 7:47 am
Two decisions -- People v Battaglia (56 NY2d 558 [1982], reversing on dissent of Hancock, Jr., J. at 82 AD2d 389) and People v Hicks (68 NY2d 234 [1986]) - - have appeared to be in conflict. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 9:23 am
 Neither does the status of the owner (living v. not living). [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 9:32 pm
The trial court said no, and the Fourth Department held that the record supports the court's determination (the Court wrote that on this issue one should see generally People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838; People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845; People v Hicks, 69 NY2d 969, rearg denied 70 NY2d 796; People v Dehmler, 188 AD2d 1056, lv denied 81 NY2d 1013). [read post]