Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Nardone" Results 1 - 12 of 12
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2010, 9:04 pm
This is the train of citations (Sidhom is not pertinent): Thomas (2002): The defendant, however, bears the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the evidence should not be used against him (see, People v Berrios, supra at 367; People v Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66, 70; People v Whitehurst, 25 NY2d 389, 391; Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341-342), and that the police lacked probable cause… [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 6:14 am by Heidi Henson
According to Nardone, employers’ current policies likely take into consideration the three factors described in the 8th Circuit’s 1977 decision in Green v Missouri Pacific Railroad — the nature of the offense, the time period that has elapsed since the offense was committed, or the sentence completed, and the relationship to the job at issue. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 4:23 am by Susan Brenner
U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920) and was identified as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Nardone v. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 4:34 pm by Chuck Cosson
  Hypocrisy makes people uneasy because it suggests unfairness:  someone gets credit for holding a professed view without “doing the work” of acting on, or receiving the consequences of that view.[1] This form of human perception is not necessarily wrong:  in some cases the public position is indeed a dishonest front for the speaker’s real agenda. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 7:16 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]