Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart
Free Instant Delivery  |  No Sales Tax
Home > Case Law > Criminal Law  >  Linda R. S. v. Richard D.
Linda R. S. v. Richard D.
Linda R. S. v. Richard D. Cartoons

Linda R. S. v. Richard D.

A plaintiff must have a sufficient stake in the outcome of a case to maintain standing.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia
Execution of mentally retarded person is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. deterence; retribution.
The King v. Pear
The King v. Pear
If one rents property under false pretenses and fails to return it at the end of the lease time, and instead sells the property and keeps the money, he has committed a felony.
State v. Smith
State v. Smith
Defendant may not be convicted rape if words and conduct of complainant justify reasonable belief that complainant consented. affirmative defense; general intent; mistake of fact; preponderance of the evidence; reasonable doubt; specific intent.
Attorney General for Jersey v. Holley
Attorney General for Jersey v. Holley
Provocation defense is akin to self defense; would a person having ordinary powers of self-control commit same crime as defendent given gravity of provocation? Evidence of the alcoholism or intoxication of defendant should not be considered.
Clark v. Arizona
Clark v. Arizona
Mott Rule; mental illness short of insanity does not bear on mens rea according to Arizona state Mott Rule; court will not allow evidence of a mental disorder short of insanity as bearing on a defendant's capacity to form specific intent.
General Deterrence and Sentencing
General Deterrence and Sentencing
United States v. Milken, individual deterrence, general deterrence, punishment, retribution, and rehabilitation, appropriate criminal sentence.
United States v. McDermott
United States v. McDermott
A conspiracy requires a unity of unlawful purpose between two or more individuals.
Brady v. United States
Brady v. United States
A guilty plea is not involuntary merely because it was entered into to avoid the possibility of the death penalty.
Exculpatory-No Doctrine
Exculpatory-No Doctrine
Brogan v. United States; A "false statement" under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 includes any false statement knowingly and willfully made within the jurisdiction of a federal agency, encompassing even a mere false denial of criminal wrongdoing.
Defense of Habitation
Defense of Habitation
State v. Boyett; entry to home not required for defense of habitation, but habitation defense not applicable if victim was fleeing.
Substantial Factor Test
Substantial Factor Test
Valazquez v. State; but-for test and substantial factor test to determine liability as cause in fact; must also be the proximate cause or no liability.
Sentencing Guideline Range
Sentencing Guideline Range
United States v. Bernard Madoff; While the court must give the sentencing guideline range fair and respectful consideration, it is not bound by it and must make an individualized sentencing assessment.