Search for: "People v. Stone" Results 21 - 40 of 931
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2016, 11:48 am by Kym Stapleton
  CJLF filed an amicus brief in one of the cases (Beylund v. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 11:49 am
 Plus, in death penalty cases, the prosecution generally leaves no stone unturned.But, here, the evidence that Kim Kopatz strangled his wife and daughter is incredibly thin. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 9:17 am by David Oxenford
Under the NY Times v Sullivan Supreme Court precedent, the decision in defamation cases quite often depends on the determination of whether the person who was allegedly defamed is a public figure. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 11:55 am
Stone wrote in the wake of Gonzales v. [read post]
14 May 2014, 10:49 am
 Stone work, wood gate, courtyard, patio, fireplace, swimming pool with waterfall and spa, exterior shower, custom wet bar with built-in wine racks; in short, all the trimmings.Three years later, the Acostas stopped paying their mortgage. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
”  Dissent in United States v Ballard Chief Justice Harlan Stone authored a dissent, which was joined by Justices Black, Reed,Murphy, and Rutledge. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:44 am by Sarah Grant
One preliminary injunction does remain in place in Stone v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 4:23 am by Timothy P. Flynn
  [Note: in Washington state, the legal threshold is 5 ng/ml.]In People v. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 10:10 am by Stephen Bilkis
The case involves a respondent named PH who is the subject of a sex offender civil management petition filed pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 3:38 pm by Jason Mazzone
Heller (2008) and McDonald v. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 2:36 pm by Stephen Bilkis
However, in Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Spitzer (2007), the court enjoined the operation of this provision of the statute because it held that the continued detention of a respondent in every case following a probable cause determination but prior to a trial was "inherently coercive" and a violation of constitutional due process. [read post]