Search for: "People v. Phillips (1985)"
Results 1 - 20
of 33
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm
Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 66, fn. 17 [after oral argument, the parties were invited to submit supplemental briefing regarding application of statute]; People v. [read post]
17 Sep 2012, 1:45 am
Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 11:24 pm
On Friday, the Court of Appeal handed down the decision in Francis and another v Phillips and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1395 and, thankfully, the decision of the High Court was overturned (in part). [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
There may be further additions and comments as people get a chance/have a brainwave. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
There may be further additions and comments as people get a chance/have a brainwave. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 4:12 pm
See People v. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 9:09 am
Katz, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Palo Alto, CA Right now we’re in a complete mess; nobody knows what the law is. [read post]
22 May 2015, 12:26 pm
They include: (1) Nonnon v City of New York;2 (2) Simpson v City of New York;3 (3) Irizarry v City of New York;4 (4) Carollo v City of New York;5 (5) Walsh v City of New York;6 (6) Arisio v City of New York;7 (7) Parmigiano v City of New York;8 (8) Phillips v City of New York;9 and (9) Nessen v City of New York.10 There were 29 plaintiffs in the original nine actions. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 8:17 am
Long v. [read post]
29 May 2020, 11:42 pm
See Phillips, 775 F.3d at 543.) [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
PEOPLE v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:54 am
Mitt Romney recently claimed that corporations are people too, but it was Lewis Powell, the courtly gentleman from Virginia, who devised a plan 40 years ago to put the rights of corporations above those of the people. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] New York’s ‘aggravated harassment’ statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague
13 May 2014, 1:08 pm
” See also People v Dupont, 107 AD2d 247, 253 [1st Dept 1985] [observing that the statute's vagueness is apparent because "[i]t is not clear what is meant by communication ‘in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm’ to another person”]). [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 10:55 am
Penthouse Int'l Magazine, 1985; Schultz v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
See Mein v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 5:28 am
Applying Phillips Petroleum Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 11:41 am
People lie. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
Oliver edited by Jim Phillips, R. [read post]
4 Feb 2023, 8:05 am
Lago v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 7:38 am
In addition, the hearing will explore the authorities available to the Administration and the international community to protect the people of Hong Kong, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and others. [read post]
