Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Woods" Results 181 - 200 of 1,113
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2018, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
The statutory duty does not extend to every kind of activity that people engage in on the premises. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 6:19 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Most people would probably say something else, like they took their eyes off the road for some reason. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 3:03 am by Walter Olson
U.S. here, here] “From Chevron to ‘Consent of the Governed'” [David Schoenbrod, Cato Regulation magazine; Cato panel discussion video with Adam White, David Doniger, Shapiro and Yeatman; Federalist Society panel discussion video with Mark Chenoweth, Doniger, Kristin Hickman, Schoenbrod, Jennifer Mascott] “Recognizing the Congressional Review Act’s Full Potential” [Jonathan Wood, Federalist Society, earlier] “Idaho is the only state in the… [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 4:04 am by INFORRM
  Article 1(3) of that Directive limits the field of application of the directive to activities falling with the TFEU, thereby excluding matters covered by Titles V and VI of the TEU at that time (e.g. public security, defence, State security). [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 8:17 pm by Toni Guarino
Judge Wood held that the labels were only entitled to one statutory damage award per each work infringed, regardless of how many people downloaded the recording. [read post]
24 May 2011, 7:34 am by Conor McEvily
  Simply put, California needs to lock up fewer people, as does our nation. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 12:14 am by INFORRM
In particular, the court considered the deemed lawful taking of photographs by police officers as in R (Wood) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2010] 1 WLR 123 and R (Catt) v Association of Chief Police Officers [2015] AC 1065. [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 12:39 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals this week issued an odd and confusing opinion in a case styled Johnson v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 12:33 pm by Steven M. Gursten
See, e.g., Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm , 480 Mich 75, 91 n 13 (2008); Al-Shimmari v Detroit Med Ctr, 477 Mich 280, 297 n 10; 731 NW2d 29 (2007); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 667 n 8; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); People v Hickman, 470 Mich 602, 610 n 6; 684 NW2d 267 (2004); Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 203 n 19; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). [read post]