Search for: "People v. Norwood" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2009, 10:20 am
Because guess what: locking people down interminably does indeed reduce prison violence, as you can't attack someone in the yard if no one's ever in the yard. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
  Here in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006 issued its decision in City of Norwood v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 11:22 am by MBettman
” Ohio Constitution Article I Section 2 provides that ‘[a]ll political power is inherent in the people. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 12:54 am by INFORRM
In R v Ahmed Faraz [2012] EWCA Crim 2820 a man dubbed ‘the terrorists’ favourite bookseller’ successfully challenged seven convictions for disseminating ‘terrorist publications’ under s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
The court based its findings on, among other evidence, two expert reports and it found that Terentyev had negatively influenced public opinion “with the aim of inciting social hatred and enmity, escalating social conflict and controversy in society and awakening base instincts in people”, calling for the “physical extermination” of police officers by ordinary people. [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 2:47 pm by Eugene Volokh
Hosp., 666 F.Supp. 933 (S.D.Miss.1987) (hospital could terminate female nurse assistant in favor of male orderlies on the basis of gender in order to preserve privacy interests of male patients); Norwood v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 11:54 am by Kevin
" See also "There is No Klingon Word for Deference," Lowering the Bar (Sept. 9, 2012) (citing Norwood v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 3:16 pm by Karwan Eskerie
(para 55) It was held to be relevant that the leaflets were left in the lockers of young people who were at an impressionable and sensitive age and who had no possibility to decline to accept them. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 4:56 am by SHG
  The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Williams v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  In Mills, the plaintiff claimed that, due to a variant gene (“CYP”), she could not metabolize the defendant’s drug as well as most other people. [read post]