Search for: "State v. Leary" Results 41 - 60 of 166
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2008, 5:27 am
" Which both several non-California cases have already reached and which Justice O'Leary correctly concludes as well. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”*** See Detective Endowment Assn., Police Dept., City of N.Y. v Leary, 36 AD2d 289, affirmed 30 NY2d 577The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02897.htm [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 8:03 am by Rob Robinson
Everlaw is used by Fortune 100 corporate counsels and household brands like Hilton and Dick’s Sporting Goods, 91 out of the AM Law 200 and all 50 U.S. state attorneys general. [read post]
18 Mar 2018, 1:29 pm by Eric Goldman
Leary’s testimony to Congress that FOSTA “leaves Section 230(c), the Good Samaritan immunity section, untouched. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 5:00 am by Joy
Green party takes battle with leader Annamie Paul to court Lawyer gets reprimand for responding to negative online review with embarrassing client informationJudge forces US Capitol rioter to unlock laptop seized by FBI Judge rules in favour of journalists' access to BC Fairy Creek blockadeCalifornia Officials Consider Bar Exam Options, Possible ChangesTop New Mexico state court is second to rule that gas stations can be liable for selling fuel to drunken driversMississippi asks the… [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 11:37 am by New York Criminal Defense
 In Leary v United States, 395 US 6, 33 [1969], the Supreme Court held that “a criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary,’ and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 11:37 am by Donald Thompson
 In Leary v United States, 395 US 6, 33 [1969], the Supreme Court held that “a criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary,’ and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 4:13 am by Steve Lubet
Before the end of the year, Ruffin would author the opinion inState v. [read post]