Search for: "Page v. Cleveland" Results 201 - 220 of 236
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2009, 3:37 am
 The post led with the 4th Circuit's decision in US v. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
If you arrive at page 63 of this opinion, what you'll learn is that: "We've arrived at page 63 of this opinion, but we're still not ready for the merits. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm by John Ross
In which the Tenth Circuit deep-dives into Urban Dictionary, scrolls through 38 pages of the website's entry for "dab," and hits gold on page 39. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
On 1 August 2022, judgment was handed down in Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) by Chamberlain J. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 1:04 am
Special Counsel Lee Strauss claims that Loumiet purposely got rid of the fax's cover page to make the transactions look separate in reports for Hamilton auditors. [read post]
14 May 2008, 7:03 am
I also very much appreciate Solum's kind remarks concerning my book, American Constitutionalism.After reading Solum's responses and further mature deliberation (my favorite phrase from Pierson v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 3:18 pm by Gene Quinn
  They pointed to a case from the Northern District of California — Polarity, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am by admin
”[11] Not content to leave it well said, the chapter’s authors returned to the confidence interval and provided another, more problematic definition, a couple of pages later in the text: “A confidence interval is a range of possible values calculated from the results of a study. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
On this episode, plaintiffs from the landmark case of Monroe v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 6:12 pm by SO Issues
Margie Slagle (Web Site) wrote an amicus brief representing the Cleveland and Texas rape crisis centers in the Williams v Ohio case. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:52 am by Phil Dixon
Judges Inman and Griffin concurred. (1) Victim’s statements regarding identity of attacker were admissible as excited utterances despite possible passage of time between attack and statements; (2) Sixth Amendment confrontation argument not raised during trial was waived on appeal notwithstanding pretrial motion; (3) No abuse of discretion or prejudicial error in admission of testimony identifying defendant on a jail phone call and interpreting the contents of the call State v. [read post]