Search for: "People v. Tucker" Results 21 - 40 of 295
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2014, 2:14 pm
At a hearing on a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion in accordance with C.P.L. 440.30(6) and as was held in People v Tucker, involving a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on new evidence pursuant to C.P.L 440.10(1)(g) and People v Tankleff. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 6:16 am
  But never have I read a dissent like this, from Tucker v. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 2:19 pm
  The verdict, composed of $1M in compensatory damages and $3M in punitive damages in Tucker v. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 10:23 am by David Kopel
Part V addresses Miller and Tucker's claim that the American Founders were unfamiliar with dramatic technological changes in firearms — a claim that is refuted by Dupuy's data. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 3:31 am by Edith Roberts
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2013, 12:41 pm by Brian Shiffrin
People v Nimmons, 95 AD3d 1360, 1360-1361, lv denied 19 NY3d 1028; People v Tucker, 91 AD3d 1030, 1031-1032, lv denied 19 NY3d 1002; People v Ham, 67 AD3d 1038, 1039-1040; People v Gray, 30 AD3d 771, 773, lv denied 7 NY3d 848).Mr. [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 3:44 am by SHG
Our standard for judging whether a verdict is legally repugnant was articulated in 1981 in People v Tucker (55 NY2d 1). [read post]