Search for: "The People v. Gardner" Results 1 - 20 of 148
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2009, 11:37 am
Presumably it would include a wide range of other contemporary radio content as well.To represent the holding mathematically, one might say: Defamation + Defamation + Defamation = No Defamation.You can understand where this principle comes from, since if people really do not put actual faith in anything you say as a statement of fact, it's hard to call it "defamatory," since statements of opinion are protected. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 10:09 am by Venkat
Mar. 18, 2013) At Eriq Gardner’s suggestion, I attended the trial in Hoang v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 1:45 pm by Steve Gardner
by Stephen Gardner On February 27, the Northern District of California issued an opinion on a motion to dismiss in Becerra v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 8:43 am by Steve Hall
Supreme Court in 1976 to reinstate the death penalty in Gregg v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 1:01 am
Over at Defending People, blogger and criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett has been carrying on a discussion with his readers about legal ethics. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 7:59 am by Susan Brenner
user accounts and websites were traced to people other than the Chisms. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 11:57 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The Ninth Circuit helpfully posted the oral argument video to YouTube, and it’s worth watching: Check out Eriq Gardner’s recap of the argument as well: “Appeals Court Hears the Scary Things That Can Happen to Actors Who Lie to IMDb” Related posts: Privacy on Trial: Reflections on Hoang v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 3:25 am
Gardner v Broderick, 392 US 273 and People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326 discuss the parameters of immunity in connection with compelling a public officer or employee to answer questions concerning his or her performance of official duties.If, however, an individual fails to answer questions truthfully where he or she has use or transactional immunity, such immunity does not prevent the fact that he or she answered falsely from being used against the individual if he or… [read post]