Search for: "People v. Mays (1998)" Results 1 - 20 of 1,886
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2015, 1:05 pm
Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and sentenced to 25 years to life in 1998.Since 1998, defendant has spent most of his time in the Secured Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison due to his involvement in the Northern Structure prison gang. [read post]
1 May 2018, 2:25 pm
  The first of May brings us precisely such a case.The case concerns a man named Charles Brady, who lives on the streets of my very own San Diego. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm
City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807 (1998) and Burlington Indus., Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
In Rudd v Bridle [2019] EWHC 893 (QB), Warby J tried a number of issues arising out of a data subject access request (“DSAR”) under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA 1998”). [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 8:43 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Liebelt, 1998 CanLII 9113 (FCA), [1999] 2 F.C. 455 where it was noted that proper control of the border may well be a justification for Canada to control or limit in some way the exercise of relevant and unextinguished Aboriginal rights… … [152] …as Chief Justice Lamer explained in Delgamuukw v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 1:43 pm
So there you have it.Two things, though.First, the survey was conducted from November 1995 to May 1996. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 1:20 pm by Ryan Scoville
This case drew a lot of attention from people who care about U.S. foreign relations law because Bond’s second argument asked the Court to overrule Missouri v. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 6:05 pm by Donald Thompson
 The People have the initial burden of going forward to show the “lack of any undue suggestiveness” (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990]; People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]). [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 6:38 pm by Donald Thompson
 A good example of a situation in which the five day period for a § 190.50 motion may be extended is provided by People v Prest, 105 AD2d 1078 [4th Dept 1984]. [read post]