Search for: "People v. Williams" Results 1 - 20 of 3,758
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2015, 1:09 pm by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Illegal sentence — Merger of reckless endangerment and wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun Appellant Tavon Williams was indicted on numerous criminal counts in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City following an incident in which he was alleged to have shot and wounded two people. [read post]
5 May 2008, 3:21 pm
In which you discover facts that are difficult to square with calling Williams a total sociopath. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 4:19 am
"I am invisible, you understand, because people simply refuse to see me. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 5:17 pm
Howard Bashman of How Appealing has once again brought an interesting decision to my attention, this time in Williams v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 11:41 am
You're not required to associate with people you don't like.  [read post]
27 Jan 2021, 11:52 am
Justice Petrou begins this opinion with the following paragraph:"Defendant Malik Williams appeals from a judgment after a jury found him guilty of felony burglary of a home. [read post]
5 Nov 2012, 10:26 am
You see a nontrivial number of people who are "Junior" -- e.g., "Hank Williams, Jr." -- convicted.  [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 11:48 am
Williams, for example:"In early 1993, defendant, then 51 years old, was arrested for possession of methamphetamine; he was also found in possession of drug paraphernalia and a loaded firearm.While on bail in June 1993, defendant fired a machine gun and injured a police officer, and the next day shot at an officer and a police dog. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 11:04 am
    I realize I never posted anything about the California Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 10:33 am
Subsequent to the filing of its reconsideration motion in the uncontested "John Doe" case against College of William & Mary students, Interscope v. [read post]
  Williams v The London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37 was about the opposite scenario; where a local authority wanted to accommodate but the parents wanted the children back. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 3:00 pm
  Because we want a neutral magistrate to decide -- except in the most extreme cases -- whether circumstances truly warrant (pun intended) making people no longer "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. [read post]