Search for: "People v. Khan" Results 1 - 20 of 247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2020, 3:43 pm
Gerberding is with a couple of other people, and they've set up a shopping cart with a tarp on it and multiple pallets as their camp. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 10:37 am by JURIST Staff
In People v Byrnes (1948), it was held that public trial means that it is not restricted to any particular class of the community but is freely open to all. [read post]
19 May 2011, 5:50 am by Anthony Lake
Economic Affairs Officer, Economic Affairs for third degree assault and resisting arrest, People v. [read post]
4 Nov 2006, 11:54 am
And our intelligence agencies in fact do many things to such people that go close to or over the legal limits. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm by Lina M. Khan
Our staff has published a “frequently asked questions” resource to demystify the rulemaking process and identify opportunities for the public to engage.22 We will also host a virtual public forum on September 8, where people will be able to provide oral remarks that will be part of the ANPR record.23 I am grateful to our agency staff for their work on this ANPR and my colleagues on the Commission for their engagement and input. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 6:49 am by David Oscar Markus
From his order (via Professor Berman's site):Last year in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 11:50 pm by Tessa Shepperson
Enter the entertaining case of Williamson v Khan. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:00 am by William C. MacLeod and Darby Hobbs
She cited reports describing Khan as “abusive” and as a “tyrant,” and the lack of assurance given by the FTC to “put the people first. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
The bout ended after Khan could not continue following a low blow. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 9:25 am by Ron Voyles & Associates
  The officer saw several people backing up and saw Khan and his friends putting their hands in the air. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 7:12 pm by Benjamin Wittes
I was amused, in reading Judge Bates’ Khan opinion just now, to run across the judge’s account of the scope of the government’s detention authority–amused because the New York Times this morning editorialized that holding people in prolonged military detention is “certainly illegal. [read post]