Search for: "State v. Whitfield" Results 61 - 80 of 108
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2016, 11:37 am by Donald Thompson
 An example is provided by People v Whitfield, 158 AD2d 922 [4th Dept 1990], where the prosecution failed to request that the jury could presume defendant’s knowing possession of stolen property from his recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 11:37 am by New York Criminal Defense
 An example is provided by People v Whitfield, 158 AD2d 922 [4th Dept 1990], where the prosecution failed to request that the jury could presume defendant’s knowing possession of stolen property from his recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 9:51 am by Lai Yip
On November 25, 2013, the jury in TQP Development, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, et al., U.S.D.C., E.D. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:43 am by Wells Bennett
Expectation of privacy underlies decisions in such cases as United States v. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 7:17 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 122503, July 30, 2012) and dismissed a claim by a civilly committed atheist that forcing him to participate in various specific sex offender treatment programs violates his free exercise rights and the Establishment Clause.In Whitfield v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 8:52 am by WIMS
<> Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 3:57 am by Amy Howe
Briefly: At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidgger weighs in on Whitfield v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 11:42 am by Lyle Denniston
June — same issue as in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:36 am by John Elwood
  Meanwhile, an IFP petition, two-time relist Whitfield v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 11:38 am by Lyle Denniston
  In the others, the Court is to decide what proof that federal prosecutors must offer to get a longer sentence when an alleged robber draws someone else into the crime, resulting in injury or death (Whitfield v. [read post]
19 Jan 2008, 11:58 am
§ 1983, and for malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective contract, pursuant to Ohio state law. [read post]