Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. [2]
An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw their plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, however, binds the court once the court accepts the agreement.
A transfer will be fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Thus, if a transfer is made with the specific intent to avoid satisfying a specific liability, then actual intent is present. However, when a debtor prefers to pay one creditor instead of another, that is not a fraudulent transfer. [citation needed]
NEW YORK/BOSTON (Reuters) -RTX agreed to pay nearly $950 million to resolve federal charges it defrauded the U.S. Department of Defense into overpaying for defense systems and bribed an official ...
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997. [1] The UCCJEA has since been adopted by 49 U.S. States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Among them are California, [4] Delaware, [5] Massachusetts, [6] New Jersey, [7] New York, Texas, [8] and Washington. [9] However, the federal mail and wire fraud statutes [ 10 ] can be used to prosecute commercial bribery as a "scheme or artifice to defraud" if the mail or interstate wire facilities are used.
Kamala Harris appears in 2011 at a "Smart on Crime" policy summit at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, where she spoke about protecting the rights of victims of sex trafficking.
California criminal law generally follows the law of the United States. However, there are both substantive and procedural differences between how the United States federal government and California prosecute alleged violations of criminal law.