Search for: "People v. Johnson" Results 61 - 80 of 1,975
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Oct 2018, 2:58 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
An excerpt: “In many ways, it’s almost like gaslighting,” Wenona Singel says of the Johnson v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 11:30 am by Karen Tani
The Civil Rights Revolution transformed the Constitution, but not through judicial activism or Article V amendments. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:30 am by Benjamin Wittes
Our government’s good efforts for the safety of the people risks an erosion of support by the people. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:53 pm by Stephen Bilkis
A defendant need not commit an affirmative act directed at a child (see People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 591 [2002]; People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372 [2002]) nor cause actual harm to a child (see Johnson, 95 NY2d at 371; see also People v Duenas, 190 Misc 2d 801 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]) to be guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 9:47 pm
Veteran Boston Herald courthouse reporter Laurel Sweet reported on the story, noting that the case under review, Commonwealth v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 11:26 am by Jeffrey Carr
Jansen Pharmaceuticals, part of Johnson & Johnson, devloped the drug and manufactures it. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 2:14 am
One of them is Drug and Device Law’s post on the California Supreme Court decision adopting the sophisticated user doctrine in product liability cases, Johnson v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 10:35 am
 No summary judgment.A critical case for a huge number of people in Southern California. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 1:43 pm
 The People of the State of California agree, and support the trial court's view of the statute on appeal.But the Court of Appeal disagrees. [read post]
9 May 2007, 2:38 pm
I'd have given him more if I could.But, notwithstanding that sentiment, I think that Justice Johnson is right in dissent. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 3:25 am by Roman Hoyos
Conquest can only be consolidated, as Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Johnson v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 7:40 pm by Brian Shiffrin
” If a juror’s statements during voir dire raise a doubt about his impartiality, such as statements that he has a pre-formed opinion about the case, that juror cannot be permitted to sit unless he states unequivocally that he can be fair and decide the case solely on the evidence adduced at trial (People v Johnson, 17 NY3d 752, 753 [2011]; People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363… [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 12:15 pm
(Donn Logan et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents) (Boren, J., assigned justice pro tempore)(3) S093235 People v. [read post]