Search for: "People v. Woods" Results 521 - 540 of 1,103
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2014, 7:40 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
In the Name of the Child: Race, Gender, and Economics in Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 7:40 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
In the Name of the Child: Race, Gender, and Economics in Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 7:31 am
He did so in a very proportional way, Jeremy thinks.* When the Writ Hits the PhanRebecca writes about a professional YouTuber, Ms Phan, using other people’s songs in her videos and being sued by a label owning copyright on those works. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 7:22 pm
Pursuant to Code Crim.Proc., § 280 and as held in People v Jackson, People v Krank, except where time is a material ingredient of the crime the prosecution is not confined in its evidence to the precise date laid in the indictment, but may prove that the offense was committed at any time prior to the commencement of the prosecution and such proof does not constitute a material variance. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 9:33 am
He is a patent attorney advocate and appeared in the Court of Appeal for England and Wales on Wednesday in Lantana Ltd v Registrar of Patents. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:30 pm
 Will a lot of people seek to sneak survey evidence is, even where it shouldn't be? [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am by Bill Marler
At least 147 people were sickened and more than 33 people died[1]. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm by Bill Marler
At least 147 people were sickened, and more than 33 people died[1]. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:17 pm by Amy Howe
  First, RFRA was intended to apply very broadly, and the purpose of protecting corporations is to protect the rights of the people associated with the corporation. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:08 pm by Mark Walsh
Alito Jr. would have the Court’s opinion in Harris v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 5:30 am by Woodrow Pollack
Wood's opinions, not their admissibility.Motion to Exclude Expert, Denied.Pods Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]