Search for: "People v. Miller (1990)" Results 21 - 40 of 159
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) Michael Smith and I have just filed an amicus brief that I drafted for Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment (AWARE) in the Michigan Second Amendment stun gun case, People v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff and Miller gave different accounts of what happened next, but it is undisputed that Miller shot plaintiff, who was unarmed, in the stomach and that plaintiff suffered serious injuries. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff and Miller gave different accounts of what happened next, but it is undisputed that Miller shot plaintiff, who was unarmed, in the stomach and that plaintiff suffered serious injuries. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 7:14 am by Gritsforbreakfast
American law is an outlier on this one.Jury selection critiquesHouston law prof and Grits contributing writer Sandra Guerra Thompson has posted an older article on SSRN critiquing jury selection procedures in the context of Miller El v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 6:34 am
Verdugo-Urquidez,  494 U.S.259 (1990) (the term `people’ described in the 4th Amendment are persons who are part of the national community or may be considered as such). [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:11 am
”15 The Eighth Circuit ApproachIn 1990, Robin Miller, who had been a police officer for 10 years in Texas, applied for a position as a police officer with the city of Springfield, Missouri.16 The city required all police recruits to pass two tests before extending an offer of employment – an agility test and the MMPI-2.17 Between 1990 and 1993, Miller applied for a job with the police department three times but was rejected on the first two… [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]