Search for: "People v. Thompson (1984)" Results 1 - 20 of 52
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2013, 11:28 am by Donald Thompson
 People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 105 [1984].With respect to information clearly known to the prosecutor, the law is clear – a prosecutor may not misrepresent. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:44 am by John Elwood
  In 1984, Tate was convicted of a second-degree murder he committed as a juvenile and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:10 am
Eschweiler, 745 F.2d 435 (7th Cir. 1984); (holding that informant's use of electronic surveillance device in defendant's home did not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 12:59 pm
Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740, 753-754 (Welsh), a DUI case where the cops made a warrantless entry into a residence and also effected a warrantless arrest, a case which you may recall was specifically distinguished by our California Supreme Court in People v. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 9:34 pm by David Oscar Markus
Board of Freeholders, No. 10-945, asks whether people arrested and held for minor offenses may be routinely strip-searched.The court will also consider, in Maples v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
McCreary, 345 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Neb. 1984); [4 Harper, §§ 25.8, at 550]; [2 Speiser, §§ 8:27, at 631-32]. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:15 am by Schachtman
Armstrong World Industries, 839 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1988)(affirming grant of summary judgment on grounds that statistical correlation between asbestos exposure and disease did not support specific causation) Thompson v. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 5:07 pm by INFORRM
  Mrs Thompson’s application for permission to appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am by Eugene Volokh
Thompson, 947 F.2d 666, 676 (3d Cir. 1991) (so holding as a First Amendment matter, but concluding that Pennsylvan [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The judge said that it was “of regret when people in public office comment about a person who is involved in a trial which is in progress”. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 7:38 am by Quinta Jurecic, Molly E. Reynolds
As Jonathan David Shaub explains in Lawfare, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nixon v. [read post]