Search for: "People v. Parker" Results 1 - 20 of 461
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm by Brian Shiffrin
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot… [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 12:45 pm
In his private capacity he is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in Parker v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 9:10 am
Officer Parker tried to get behind the Sebring to conduct a traffic stop, but the Sebring sped onto the 118 Freeway with Officer Parker still in pursuit. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 12:00 am
- As suggested by Charles Dickens.Lawyers are not just for clients - As Mr Justice Moylan pointed out in PS v RS.A good judge will recognise your true intentions - Mrs Justice Parker makes a finding regarding the husband's intentions in Baldwin v Baldwin.Have a good weekend. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Fischer has used his radio show to promote outrageous, denigrating claims about LGBT people, Muslims, Native Americans and African Americans.In the interview, Parker not only discussed a marriage equality case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court – Ex parte State v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 4:01 am
Twenty years later Judge Parker was on the panel that heard Briggs v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 4:53 pm by James Eckert
The judge cannot replace a deliberating juror without the defendant's express written consent, executed in open court (CPL 270.35[1]; People v Gomez, 308 AD2d 460 [2d Dept 2003]). [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 1:50 am
" A recent case from the Tax Court, Goode-Parker v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 7:38 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
He loses the case because courts are not allowed to entertain challenges like this.The case is J.S. v. [read post]