Search for: "People v. Turner" Results 181 - 200 of 406
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2016, 6:22 am by Stephen Wermiel
But among the more interesting rulings by O’Connor that generated a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was Turner v. [read post]
Thursday The Court is not sitting today, but judgment is being handed down in the joined criminal cases R v Jogee and R v Ruddock. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 8:00 am by Gregory J. Brod
The Escobar Case As Modern Healthcare recently reported, the implied certification theory is heading to the Supreme Court via the case of Universal Health Services v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 2:01 pm
Patel: Don't worry like I said only people with the link can view it!! [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 8:34 am by Roy Black
Surely too, there was an overwhelmingly “unacceptable risk,” Turner v. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 11:35 am
It wasn’t until 1987 that Clifford Turner and Coward Chance merged, for example, and in 2004, when Slaughter and May celebrated its 125th anniversary, most of the people who had ever been partners were still alive. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am by Mathew Purchase, Matrix
He applied his Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England, which purported to apply the House of Lords judgment in R v Barnet LBC, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Turner J’s judgment in R v Waltham Forest, ex parte Vale The Times, 25 February 1985. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 8:41 am by Natalie Nanasi
Virginia, and a fundamental right and “constitutionally protected … relationship” in Turner v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 6:27 am by JB
Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell unceremoniously overrules Washington v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
It has apologised to those people whose voicemail messages were hacked by its journalists and agreed to pay them compensation. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
Thus Mr Turner [Counsel for Warner-Lambert], in his written submissions, whilst continuing to accept that the claim requires an element of "intention-like mens rea", submits that it is wrong to start with the word "intention" and embark on an exercise of deciding what that means, and to go on to hold that that form of intention must be attributed to the manufacturer. [read post]