Search for: "People v. Jimenez" Results 41 - 60 of 63
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am by John Elwood
Just identifying all those relists on the court’s docket, and then figuring out the legal issues involved, was a big job for people who really do have other responsibilities. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 11:12 am by Ashoka Mukpo
 McDonald tried to plead for instructions from the advancing officers, asking them what they wanted people to do. [read post]
14 Aug 2022, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
 An example of this use of the bad man thought experiment is provided in Justice Souter's opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Jimenez, No. 05-4098 "A check kiting scheme involving only one bank, where the defendant moved funds between various accounts at that institution, still violates the bank fraud statute as long as the elements of bank fraud are satisfied. [read post]
9 May 2018, 9:40 am by John Elwood
But it seems to me that people are overlooking the obvious answer: While many people were hoping and praying during the bleak dull days of October Term 2016 that the Supreme Court would finally get some interesting cases, nobody thought to wish that the court would ever actually decide them. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 4:30 am by John-Paul Boyd
And yet people without counsel should be able to access out-of-court dispute resolution processes just as they access in-court processes. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 6:40 am by John-Paul Boyd
Because the judge must also be fair to the other party and consider the needs of other people’s court proceedings, the judge may have to limit the time you have or ask you questions that help you get to the legal issues involved in your case. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 12:00 pm by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
Kelly said, "It's one thing when people sell their blood for money; it's another when they sell their drugs, especially when the diversion compromises the pharmaceutical supply with tainted and outdated drugs. [read post]
It is clear from the Court’s order of 26 January that the State of Israel shall refrain from military operations that carry a real and imminent risk of physical destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian people as a whole. [read post]