Search for: "People v. Miller (1996)" Results 81 - 100 of 139
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm by Bexis
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1354 (Cal. 1996); Brown v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:21 pm by Soroush Seifi
In Huras v Primerica Financial Services Limited[13]an agreement on settlement was reached which provided small compensation to each member of the large group of class members.[14]  The settlement provided for additional compensation to be paid to the Ontario and British Columbia RPs – $3000 and $2000 respectively.[15]  By way of contract, in Sutherland, Justice Winkler disallowed a claim where the RP sought compensation for work related to the administration of the… [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 5:06 pm by INFORRM
Lyle Denniston on the Supreme Court’s scotusblog suggests that the court has effectively “launched years of new lawsuits to sort it all out”, and the increasing use of technology in law-enforcement, and in other private areas of people’s lives, seems to indicate that this will be fertile ground for future litigation. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:13 pm by John Elwood
  Arthur Miller – the civil procedure guru, not the improbable husband of Marilyn Monroe – is on the petition as Of Counsel. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 5:55 pm by INFORRM
. “Identifiable” material would be treated differently from “non-identifiable” content, with the aspiration “that, over time, people will pay less attention to and take less notice of material which is anonymous”. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 7:28 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:45 pm
Fang G, Araujo V, Guerrant RL. (1991). [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 12:35 pm by Kevin Russell and Charles Davis
For example, in In re Morgan, Pryor wrote an opinion holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
The answer is yes, and the Supreme Court effectively made that clear four years ago in its important ruling in Arizona Legislature v. [read post]