Search for: "People v. Perez (1978)"
Results 1 - 20
of 20
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2007, 4:03 am
Apr. 26, 1984), cited in Aviles-Perez v. [read post]
19 Feb 2008, 2:28 pm
Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Gomez-Perez v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 11:24 am
Perez, 63 A.D.2d 911 (1st Dept. 1978); People v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 6:48 am
This post examines an opinion from the Appellate Court of Illinois – Fifth Division: People v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 1:18 am
WESTCHESTER COUNTYCriminal Practice
Remand For New Trial Upheld Despite 'Egregious' 'Brady' Violations
People v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 8:17 am
United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978). [read post]
28 May 2008, 6:42 am
Perez, 83 Cal.App.3d 718, 727, 730 [148 Cal.Rptr. 90] (1978).)A. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:33 am
In 1958, for example, the Supreme Court in Perez v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
We don't know what this stuff means, and unless you're a doctor, chances are that you don't either.But we're pretty sure of one thing - that kind of jargon has very precise medical meaning to the people who do understand what's in these package inserts. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
While Kirtsaeng involves textbooks, one of the traditionally copyright protected works, other cases, including the two previous cases involving these provisions to reach the Supreme Court (Costco v Omega and Quality King v L’anza Research), involve consumer goods, goods that we don’t typically think of as within the subject matter of copyright. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
While Kirtsaeng involves textbooks, one of the traditionally copyright protected works, other cases, including the two previous cases involving these provisions to reach the Supreme Court (Costco v Omega and Quality King v L’anza Research), involve consumer goods, goods that we don’t typically think of as within the subject matter of copyright. [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]
18 Dec 2018, 9:02 pm
In the case of all natural rights, the people understood that the government’s role was to preserve natural rights against interference from private actors and to restrain the exercise of these natural rights in circumstances where the people’s representatives in the legislature had determined that such restraint was for the public good. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:05 am
Sarmiento-Perez, 724 F.2d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1984). [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm
Redistricting — which is "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State" (Perry v Perez, 565 US 388, 392 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Growe v Emison, 507 US 25, 34 [1993]) — is a complex and contentious process that, historically, has been "within the legislative power . . . subject to constitutional regulation and limitation" (Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339, 352 [1965]). [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm
Redistricting — which is "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State" (Perry v Perez, 565 US 388, 392 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Growe v Emison, 507 US 25, 34 [1993]) — is a complex and contentious process that, historically, has been "within the legislative power . . . subject to constitutional regulation and limitation" (Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339, 352 [1965]). [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Nail v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
DA Office: “[T]he People further refer defendant to certain facts, among others, set forth in the Statement of Facts relating to … disguising reimbursement payments by doubling them and falsely characterizing them as income for tax reasons Court filing in response to defendant’s request for bill of particulars. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 6:48 am
A 1978 Supreme Court case, Monell v. [read post]
