Search for: "People v. Standard (1986)"
Results 21 - 40
of 641
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2015, 3:22 pm
2010 NY Slip Op 51103 The People of the State of New York v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 8:59 am
Wells v. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 12:09 pm
Here in the United States, for example, the Supreme Court ruled in 1986 in Bowers v. [read post]
7 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
The reach of Griswold was tested in 1986, in Bowers v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 10:10 pm
But the BIG issue is that children are NOT criminals to be marked, blacklisted, and damaged forever by criminal records, but are Juvenile Delinquents to be handled in Juvie Hall outside of the standards and practices of the criminal justice system when they can still be diverted, redirected, and reformed into responsible, law-abiding adults. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 8:25 am
See Norris v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am
The trust is publicum juris, that is, for the whole People of the State (citing People v Grant, 306 NY 258; City of New York v Rice, 198 NY 124). [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am
The trust is publicum juris, that is, for the whole People of the State (citing People v Grant, 306 NY 258; City of New York v Rice, 198 NY 124). [read post]
13 Feb 2010, 1:32 pm
The court imposed a standard range sentence on the possession offense and the mandatory minimum sentence on the offense of physical control while under the influence, to be served concurrently. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 9:46 am
In its landmark 1986 decision in Batson v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 9:36 am
It held that the officer was justified in opening the car door incident to a lawful traffic stop under the standard in State v. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 12:04 am
The dispute concerned an alleged breach of the 1986 France-Hungary BIT. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Evans v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:49 am
For pregnant people, abortion may be the lifesaving intervention needed. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 11:03 am
This concern was addressed by Congress in the Marriage Fraud Act of 1986, as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 10:16 am
However, “[t]he evidence must be sufficient, so that the court can draw the inference, having regard to the criminal standard, that what he was doing was visible to or audible to people who were in the vicinity at the relevant time. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 2:12 am
Renaissance Learning, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm
Under this standard, the information here is facially sufficient.People v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 7:37 am
Here is the piece: Last week’s unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 12:43 pm
However, without enforceable aviation noise standards, these provisions mean very little. [read post]
