Search for: "Barker v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 433
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2024, 4:46 am
See Barker v. [read post]
19 Sep 2024, 10:51 am
See McIver, 2024 WL 4144075, at * 2, citing Barker v. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 4:19 pm
State, stating “[a]lthough such a defendant cannot advance a due diligence defense, he has the statutory twenty-day remedy, and in appropriate circumstances, may have a Constitutional speedy hearing claim under Barker v. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 4:18 pm
Compare Peacock v. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 4:16 pm
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals analyzes both speedy trial and speedy revocation motion matters under the factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. [read post]
29 Aug 2024, 9:05 pm
Campbell Barker of the U.S. [read post]
29 Aug 2024, 8:21 pm
Campbell Barker on August 26, 2024, in the case, Texas v. [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 4:00 am
United States. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 7:21 am
State v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 11:21 am
(Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 3:00 am
In the past day, the encampment, which sits between John V. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm
Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 6(g) “empowered [the FTC] to promulgate substantive rules of business conduct”); United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 1:42 pm
Barker Boatworks, LLC, 898 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2018). [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:07 pm
Cloud, where they complete intake and are eventually transported to their assigned facility in the State. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 5:11 pm
He will remind Israel he supports Palestine becoming a state. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm
Lamb v Cotogno (1987): Insured PunishmentKit Barker (University of Queensland, Australia)7. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 2:48 am
Barker, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 11:47 am
Barker , 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 1:12 pm
The justices have agreed to decide the following issue: “Whether district courts, in determining whether the due process clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable-cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial-forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850 and Barker v. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:27 am
And the correct test to determine whether that has occurred, the state insists, is the one that the lower court applied in this case: the “speedy trial” test outlined in Barker v. [read post]
