Search for: "People v. Polk"
Results 21 - 40
of 103
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jan 2015, 3:52 am
And then there’s the recent matter of Trinity v. [read post]
21 Dec 2006, 6:48 am
3.
People v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 5:00 am
Schofield v. [read post]
11 Apr 2007, 1:15 am
People v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 2:25 am
.
People v. [read post]
30 May 2007, 1:19 am
People v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 1:13 am
People v. [read post]
28 Mar 2007, 1:11 am
People v. [read post]
4 Apr 2009, 1:07 am
04/03/09 ruling in Varnum v. [read post]
6 May 2021, 4:54 pm
Polk, 444 F.3d 225, 227 (4th Cir. 2006) (mem.) [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 3:44 am
” “It is well settled that “[a]n attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of the retainer” (Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, 157 AD3d 479,482 [1st Dept 2018], citingAmbase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardell, 8 NY3d 428 [2007]). [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:00 am
" He had been tipped off about the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott v. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 5:42 am
Lambda Legal's website has links here for the briefs, including all the amici briefs and decisions in the case, which is known as Varnum v. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 3:23 pm
The case is State v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 3:11 am
While Winston & Strawn loudly rescinded its offer of employment to NYU Student Bar president Ryna Workman, Davis Polk more subtly did the same for others. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 11:38 am
For more info, click on Youth v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 3:03 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 11:35 am
State v. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
I'd love to hear people's reactions and recommendations, since there's still plenty of time to edit it. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:03 pm
Polk, No. 072425 Sentence of fifteen years and eight months incarceration for attempting to produce child pornography is affirmed where: 1) there was no gross disproportionality between the fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment established by 18 U.S.C. section 2251(e) and the offense of which the defendant was convicted; and 2) the defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge failed. [read post]
