Search for: "People v. Smith" Results 81 - 100 of 3,565
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2007, 5:31 am
Peggie Smith, Welfare, Child Care, and the People Who Care: Union Representation of Family Child Care Providers (50). [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 11:33 am
Peggie Smith, Welfare, Child Care, and the People... [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 5:31 am
Peggie Smith, Welfare, Child Care, and the People Who Care: Union Representation of Family Child Care Providers (50). [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 10:32 am
Peggie Smith, Welfare, Child Care, and the People Who Care: Union Representation of Family Child Care Providers (49). [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 8:16 am
Peggie Smith, Welfare, Child Care, and the People Who Care: Union Representation of Family Child Care Providers (44). [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 8:45 pm
For example, in February 2008, we noted that the Court in People v Smith (2008 NY Slip Op 00904 [4th Dept 2008)held that [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in calculating the expiration date of the order of protection without taking into account the jail time credit to which she is entitled (see People v Clinkscales, 35 AD3d 1266, 1267; People v Hare, 27 AD3d 1171, 1172, lv denied 6 NY3d 892, 894, 898). [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 10:01 am by Betsy McKenzie
However, in coming to this ruling, Judge Leon distinguishes the 1979 decision, Smith v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 5:13 am by SHG
As noted in the New York Law Journal, the Court of Appeals, by Judge Robert Smith, granted leave in People v. [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:57 am by SHG
Note: This is a guest post by Guy Hamilton-Smith. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 2:33 pm by Bob Lawless
Vickie Lynn Marshall, as she is known to bankruptcy mavens, or Anna Nicole Smith, as she is known to normal people, lost today in her second round before the Supreme Court. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:12 am
I don’t entirely agree with him — I’m one of the few people who thinks Buckley v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 2:43 am
PROBATION CAN'T HAVE RIGID POLICIES WHICH AREN'T PARTICULAR TO A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S SITUATION (People v. [read post]