Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Taylor"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,118
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2018, 4:51 pm
Enter the recent decision out of Kitchener of Wiles v. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 12:52 pm
When in response to the prosecutor's question, the main prosecution witness falsely testified that she had received no benefit for he testimony, the prosecutor did not correct this "misstatement" as required (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496-498; People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451, lv denied 2 NY3d 762; People v Potter, 254 AD2d 831, 832).2. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 3:40 pm
See Taylor v. [read post]
22 Oct 2022, 1:06 pm
(v) Three minor violations. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 5:02 am
Taylor, 178 N.C. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 8:18 am
Some Related Posts: * Section 230 Preempts Unfair Competition Law Claim–Taylor v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 9:13 am
Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich on Friday disputed that Trump has privately expressed misgivings about overturning Roe.... [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 10:32 am
Loving v. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 8:42 am
In November 2020, the court granted, reversed, and remanded a qualified immunity decision out of the Fifth Circuit in Taylor v. [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 4:30 am
Brown and Biden v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 4:18 am
Taylor v. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 8:55 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 10:05 pm
The case is STATE v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 4:08 am
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times weighs in on Kerry v. [read post]
17 Aug 2006, 10:15 am
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan enjoined the program today in ACLU v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 3:20 pm
The same sex crimes was not charged in more than one of the counts (see People v Saunders, 290 AD2d 461 [2002]; People v Taylor, 190 Misc 2d 124 [2002]). [read post]
11 May 2007, 2:18 pm
An interesting case from the Second Department Tuesday provides some answers - People v Taylor, 2007 NY Slip Op 04149. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 1:24 pm
Taylor, 375 Ill. [read post]
8 Sep 2018, 5:10 am
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit agreed with us (in Rynearson v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 3:50 am
"The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that the County was under no contractual obligation to provide [Handy] with health insurance and, accordingly, it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in terminating that benefit.The Handy decision should be contrasted with two other retiree benefits cases: Della Rocco v City of Schenectady and Andriano v City of Schenectady.The Schenectady cases differed in that they concerned executive action as opposed to legislative action and… [read post]
