Search for: "People v. Municipal Court (1970)" Results 21 - 40 of 74
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2024, 7:50 am by Rebecca Tushnet
It’s on the books but never tested in courts. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 11:45 pm by Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq.
Anyway, getting back on topic, guess what, the Appellate Court Division of the Orange County Superior Court has ruled in the case of People v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 8:45 pm by Norman Gregory Fernandez
Anyway, getting back on topic, guess what, the Appellate Court Division of the Orange County Superior Court has ruled in the case of People v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 10:03 pm
Following a stay in a rehabilitation facility in the late 1970s, the claimant was able to stop using drugs for a period of about nine years. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:19 am by J. Gordon Hylton
Forty-five years ago, the baseball world trained its attention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its impending decision in the case of Wisconsin v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 5:39 am by admin
    It’s a principal reason why people move from one town to another. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 9:30 pm by Mitra Sharafi
The message of Koni’s memoir about power of courts to reestablish social contract and guarantee people’s rights and dignity was again untimely. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 4:05 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
City of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1986), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the cap on tort damages against municipalities and school districts. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 7:56 am by Eugene Volokh
In 1972, a 4-1-4 Supreme Court decision said "yes" in federal cases, no in state cases; the Supreme Court will now reconsider it.The case is Ramos v. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 9:02 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
The new state law does just that and prevents municipalities from adopting any similar provisions designed to protect LGBT individuals against discrimination.Second, the legislature apparently wanted to ensure that courts would not interpret the state’s ban on sex discrimination to include gender identity or sexual orientation. [read post]