Search for: "People v. Jones (1989)" Results 1 - 20 of 106
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2010, 1:02 pm by Erin Miller
Indeed, three years after Jones, in Griffin v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
Both the United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals have held that once a defendant chooses to be represented by counsel, counsel and not the defendant has control over most strategic decisions are made by the attorney and not the defendant (Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 751 [1983]; People v White, 73 NY2d 468, 478 [1989]). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 7:33 pm by Tom Crane
International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1989), Judge Jones dissented when the panel denied summary judgment - thus allowing the lawsuit to proceed. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 7:40 am by Orin Kerr
Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989) (citing Winston v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 6:38 pm by Donald Thompson
 Such a motion is waived, however, if not made within five days of arraignment (see also, People v Jones, 187 AD2d 750 [3rd Dept 1992], lv den, 81 NY2d 790 [1993]), although in some cases, discussed below, that five-day deadline may be extended. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 11:45 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
In Matter of Jones v Town of Carroll the court found that landfill operations were similar to mining operations and therefore the Court's recent holding in Glacial Aggregates LLC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 6:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
One might think that such a concession is effectively no different than a guilty plea, and the decision whether to plead guilty is fundamental one for the defendant and not counsel (Jones v Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 [1983]; People v White, 73 NY2d 468 [1989]). [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 6:44 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
An Ontario Court of Appeal decision today, Jones v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 11:47 am by Steve Bainbridge
Bastiaan Assink: In passing, the court also says a thing or two about Chancellor Allen's much overlooked 1989 TW Services decision and the ongoing debate about director primacy v. shareholder primacy between the Marty Lipton's (the board!) [read post]