Search for: "People v. May (1988)" Results 1 - 20 of 1,391
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2015, 1:05 pm
He was convicted of theft in 1988 and incurred two burglary convictions, his two strikes, in 1989. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 1:58 pm
 You may perhaps be granted parole, but the trial court properly found that you're not entitled to resentencing. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 6:05 pm by Donald Thompson
As we know, under the due process clauses of the New York State Constitution, Article I, § 6, and the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, evidence of a pretrial identification of the defendant is inadmissible if the procedure used is “unnecessarily suggestive” (Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188 [1972]; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241 [1981]; People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677 [1989]; People v Farraro, 144 AD2d 976 [4th Dept… [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 11:57 am by Brian Shiffrin
Campbell, a 1988 decision excerpted below, an attempt to engage in an act with unintended consequences may not be a cognizable crime. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 4:03 pm
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court heard the case of the People, Respondent, v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
The trust is publicum juris, that is, for the whole People of the State (citing People v Grant, 306 NY 258; City of New York v Rice, 198 NY 124). [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
The trust is publicum juris, that is, for the whole People of the State (citing People v Grant, 306 NY 258; City of New York v Rice, 198 NY 124). [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:57 am by Eleonora Rosati
 At the national level, also super-learned Mr Justice Arnold said [in his 2013 decision in SAS v WPL, at para 27] that:"In the light of a number of recent judgments of the CJEU, it may be arguable that it is not a fatal objection to a claim that copyright subsists in a particular work that the work is not one of the kinds of work listed in section 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988 and defined elsewhere in that Act." [read post]