Search for: "People v. Smith (1985)"
Results 1 - 20
of 150
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm
” After Gregg v. [read post]
13 Aug 2024, 2:28 am
This holding conflicts with a recent ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, People v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:05 pm
The Ninth Circuit, in U.S. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm
From today's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Book People, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 8:09 am
” Smith v. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 2:23 pm
California (1973), though with extra detail added by Smith v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 6:49 pm
In Smith 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]
7 May 2023, 6:00 am
Yet another challenge to original-intent originalism was posed by Jefferson Powell's famous article, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, published in 1985. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:09 pm
Co., 497 A.2d 322, 327 (R.I. 1985); Hart v. [read post]
25 Mar 2023, 2:40 pm
See Knick v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 2:22 pm
Co., 497 A.2d 322, 327 (R.I. 1985). [3] Edwards v. [read post]
11 Mar 2023, 12:01 am
In 1944, the NAACP triumphed in Smith v. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 8:30 am
State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
I relied in part on an anecdote involving a visit by Justice Scalia to the University of Texas and and his clear lack of interest in what his friend and former colleague Doug Laycock planned to publish in the Supreme Court Review about his opinion in the “peyote case,” Smith v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 5:35 am
In that respect, Pennsylvania's law is influencing what Fox in New York is allowed to say to people all over the country (indeed, all over the world). [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 8:48 am
Smith, 357 F.3d 103, 108 (D.C. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am
It is widely accepted that, consistent with the Dormant Commerce Clause, a firm doing multistate business must bear the cost of discovering and complying with state laws—tort laws, tax laws, franchise laws, health laws, privacy laws, and much more—everywhere it does business.[21] People and firms operating in "real space" must take steps to learn and comply with state law in places they visit or do business, or must avoid visiting or doing business in those… [read post]
28 Aug 2022, 8:06 am
Lucey: Right to effective assistance of counsel extended to appeal process. 1985 Hill v. [read post]
